meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Switzerland | |
| age | 30 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 2 months |
| seen | Apr 26 '12 at 6:39 | |
| stats | profile views | 0 |
|
Apr 26 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Apr 26 |
accepted | Proving item association without revealing one of the associated items |
|
Apr 26 |
accepted | Distributed knowledge problem |
|
Apr 20 |
awarded | Student |
|
Apr 20 |
comment |
Distributed knowledge problem AFAIK no changes in the protocol could compensate for a client crash in a 2 party scenario so so some kind of client side recovery would have to be attempted. As for one in N(>2) parties quitting. The most straight forward solution would probably be to resolve his commitments as part of the exit procedure. I'm not yet sure how much of an issue quitting/crashing is. I mostly wanted to get a feel for how it could be done / if my idea was basically sound or complete rubbish... |
|
Apr 20 |
comment |
Distributed knowledge problem I indeed did not consider that Bob might not behave honestly. However since there is no way for him to know what changing anything would do I'd call it less "cheating" but more "messing with people". Still worth considering though. Interesting idea to only use the commitments. |
|
Apr 20 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Apr 20 |
revised |
Distributed knowledge problem Expanded post to answer comment. |
|
Apr 20 |
asked | Distributed knowledge problem |
|
Apr 20 |
comment |
Proving item association without revealing one of the associated items Getting a value for R would really be up to "Alice" and the id comes from a rather limited pool but at least the ids can be assumed to be randomly generated GUIDs. Alice could try and choose R but with a good hash function she should not be able to find H(Rorig | IDorig) = H(Rnew | IDnew) right? |
|
Apr 20 |
comment |
Proving item association without revealing one of the associated items This seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. If I use 256bit GUID values for both R and the id then that should be sufficient then? |
|
Apr 20 |
revised |
Proving item association without revealing one of the associated items changed tags |
|
Apr 20 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Apr 20 |
asked | Proving item association without revealing one of the associated items |
