We formulate a general and relatively natural notion of an \emph{extractable collision-resistant hash function (ECRH)} and show that, if ECRHs exist, then a modified version of Di Crescenzo and Lipmaa's protocol is a succinct non-interactive argument for NP. Furthermore, the modified protocol is actually a succinct non-interactive \emph{adaptive argument of knowledge (SNARK).} We then propose several candidate constructions for ECRHs and relaxations thereof.
We demonstrate the applicability of SNARKs to various forms of delegation of computation, to succinct non-interactive zero knowledge arguments, and to succinct two-party secure computation. Finally, we show that SNARKs essentially imply the existence of ECRHs, thus demonstrating the necessity of the assumption.
Going beyond $\ECRH$s, we formulate the notion of {\em extractable one-way functions ($\EOWF$s)}. Assuming the existence of a natural variant of $\EOWF$s, we construct a $2$-message selective-opening-attack secure commitment scheme and a 3-round zero-knowledge argument of knowledge. Furthermore, if the $\EOWF$s are concurrently extractable, the 3-round zero-knowledge protocol is also concurrent zero-knowledge.
Our constructions circumvent previous black-box impossibility results regarding these protocols by relying on $\EOWF$s as the non-black-box component in the security reductions.
Category / Keywords: foundations / extractable functions, knowledge assumptions, knowledge of exponent, collision-resistant hash functions, zero knolwedge Original Publication (with major differences): ITCS 2012 Date: received 24 Jul 2014 Contact author: nirbitan at tau ac il Available format(s): PDF | BibTeX Citation Note: This paper is a merge of Bitansky-Canetti-Chiesa-Tromer11 and Goldwasser-Lin-Rubinstein11. It include results on zero-knowledge protocols from extractable one-way functions, which do not appear in the public eprint versions of either BCCT11 or GLR11. Version: 20140725:123936 (All versions of this report) Short URL: ia.cr/2014/580 Discussion forum: Show discussion | Start new discussion