Re: [Bitcoin-development] (space) efficient reusable addr via weil pairing IBE (Re: Bait for reusable addresses)

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9939 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:19:01PM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> I think I figured out a proof of existance for a space efficient way to do
> better than bloom filters/prefix/bloom-bait.  (Must have been dreaming on it
> as I woke up with the idea following Peter's suggestion to try prove instead
> if its possible or not:).
> 
> I wrote up the details here:
> 
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=431756.new

One of the main reasons I post to the bitcoin-development mailing list
rather than the forum is because the mailing list is archived by many
different, independent, parties. The forum is not - as an example
archive.org didn't have that URL until I manually told it to archive it.

So I'm taking the liberty of reposting your two posts there below:

[quote author=adam3us link=topic=431756.msg4729682#msg4729682
date=1390660452]
So have been talking with Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Jeremy Spillman,
Mike Hearn, Bytecoin and others about reusable addresses.

There is a summary of the situation here
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03792.html
and I had posed th question of whether it was possible to do better at
all with Peter Todd:

[quote author=adam3us on bitcoin-dev]
Now while it would be clearly a very nice win if reusable addresses
could be  made SPV-like in network characteristics and privacy, but we
dont have a plausible mechanism yet IMO.  Close as we got was Greg's
enhancement of my/your "bloom bait"/"prefix" concept to make multiple
candidate baits to provide some ambiguity (still allows elimination,
just slightly less of it).

If we can find some efficient crypto to solve that last one, we could
even adopt them generally if it was efficient enough without needing
interactive one-use address release
[/quote]

and Peter proposed also the related problem of proving something about
that existence or not of a solution to that problem.

I think I have a proof-of-concept solution that proves by example we can
do better in space efficiency, linkability defense and non-interactivity
than my bloom bait, Peter Todds related prefix; and Greg Maxwell's
extended bloom bait described
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03705.html.

So the idea is to use an IBE scheme as a building block in analogous way
to my 1996 problem statement for NIFS and 1998 observation that a novel
use for an IBE scheme can provide a generic solution to NIFS, and the
arrival in 2001 of the first efficient / sensible trapdoor steepness (*)
IBE with the introduction of the Weil Pairing problem by Dan Boneh and
Matt Franklin described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boneh%E2%80%93Franklin_scheme.

Greg summarized IBE as follows on IRC:

[quote]
(for those who may) not be familar with IBE stuff: The idea is that the
user has a master private key, which results in a master public key.
Anyone can take a prior block hash and combine it with the master public
key to get a session pubkey which could be used to encrypt a chaincode
included in an OP_RETURN.   Using the master private key the user can
derrive the session private key, which can then be used to recognize
transactions using the same session key.

In IBE (identity based encryption) this is all used a bit differently:
the master keys are held by a CA, and the session ID is your email
address, and now anyone can make a public key for you— but you need the
CA's help to get your private key)
[/quote]

Basically as Greg said your public key is your address (an email
address, a block hash, whatever is convenient and unique) and from that
and the master public key of the IBE server, the server can compute a
private key corresponding to that.  The master public is usually
considered to be a system-wide domain parameter.   Naturally enough
because a side effect of this is that the IBE server can decrypt
everyones email people were never too excited about the prospect.

However my 1998 NIFS observation is by acting as your own IBE server
(each user creates their own master public server key) they can create a
sequence (NIFS) or set (bitcoin reusable address) of public keys with
interesting and publicly derivable properties!

It is my conclusion from 1996 that to solve this with DL directly at
least in the NIFS case appears to be not possible.


So basically the reusable address becomes an IBE public key, the
existing public derivation via DH or EC Elgamal/ECIES or whatever
variant (bytecoins, mine, Peter Todd/Amir Taaki's) arrives at a factor
that can be recovered.  So with my variant (random sender generated
multiplication factor encrypted with ECIES) you could encrypt the factor
with a pub=IBE-extract(master pub, id=previous block hash) using the
previous block hash as the "identity" and the users own self-owned IBE
"server".

For Bytecoin & Peter Todd/Amir Taaki EC DH version using input or
auxilliary addresses to save space its not even necessary to send the
factor, its already sent.  So then you send a separate message to do
with secure delegatable filtering, a more secure/more space efficient
bloom filter/prefix replacement, and this is a more flexible structure.

So the secure delegatable filter is you separately add an encrypted
bloom bait Greg suggested (eg 1byte prefix communicated with public
address.)  And you can even combine that with Greg's extended bloom bait
above to add anonymity set within the block.

Consequently you can now securely and very network/space efficiently
securely delegate searching a block by computing the private key for the
IBE pub key that any sender would use for that block, and sending it as
a query to a random (or node-capture defended random selected node).
The node can decrypt the encrypted bloom baits with it, but remains
powerless to correlate with bloom baits to other payments received by
the same user in bother blocks.

(In practice you might need an epoch not block or overlapping test
because the user does not have full assurance of their tx ending up in
the pending block).

About weil pairing, and new hardness crypto risk, this is also the
hardness assumption under some ZK-SNARKs as I think used in zerocash,
and while ZK-SNARK introduces its own complexity/crypto system risk on
top; in my view weil pairing is slightly lower assurance/review not so
widely used relative to EC DL problem.  Anyway the interesting thing to
say about that is in the event this scheme got broken in the future it
falls back to the scheme that is being proposed using prefix.  Ie its no
worse than that from linkability and likely would retain some cost even
if broken-- asymmetric crypto breaks are usually somewhat gradual.

This looks more expensive and non-indexable though I didnt look to see
if there is any ciphertext only or batch precomputation that could be
squeezed out of it.

Obviously its more CPU intensive and some eg fee mechanism to prevent
node DoS could be nice, but it seems to demonstrate a proof by existence
that it is possible to do better.


Finally I think it maybe within possibility to do further than this
because it is not technically necessary to delegate decryption, only to
delegate filtering, which can be a simpler requirement.

Adam

(*) There was an earlier scheme by Maurer et al if I recall, but to get
a 1024-bit security margin you had to perform a discrete log attack on a
512-bit prime, so the key generation cost was immense, hence "sensible
trapdoor steepness" thats very shallow in tems of work difference
between setup cost and crypto system strength.
[/quote]

------

[quote author=adam3us link=topic=431756.msg4732503#msg4732503
date=1390669542]
[quote author=Mike Hearn link=topic=431756.msg4730986#msg4730986
date=1390664867]
You would need epochs for another reason. Recall that with Bloom
filtering the remote node is asked for blocks in batches of 500 at a
time and the remote end handles updating the filter as transactions are
matched. This is to avoid the performance hit of a network round-trip
for every block.
[/quote]

I see I dont think I realized that aspect of how bloom query works.  So
you then with IBE-based filtering could send multiple keys, one for each
block; but you are implicitly linked by being in one query, so you'd
just as well mark your key with your preferred epoch size and sender
uses epoch number in the query.

I think Greg is pointing out on IRC that by having a fairly small epoch
you can choose later to go down to that epoch size or scale up by
sending multiple epoch keys in a batch, a privacy/network round-trip
trade off.

Re my other problem with epochs ("In practice you might need an epoch
not block or overlapping test because the user does not have full
assurance of their tx ending up in the pending block") I think that
maybe fixable, if the blocknumber is chosen by the sender, and
communicated in enough bits to be mostly unambiguous in the message.
Then the node can index them by sen block num and no ambiguity.

It could be that another way to partly obscure ownership of queries
would be to relay queries and responses and mix other peoples queries
with your own in a batch, however as we are considering the SPV client
case relaying other peoples queries seems hard to gather query traffic
on demand and to use more bandwidth than it saves relative just issuing
smaller batches.

You could have relaying in the network eg using the embedded Tor but
waiting for queries to mix with adds latency, and suffers flood attacks
on mix-nets (send fake encrypted query traffic to flush out a tx, that
has no-anon set vs the person doing the flooding who can distinguish
their own queries).

Adam

[/quote]

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000075829f6169c79d7d5aaa20bfa8da6e9edb2393c4f8662ba0

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 685 bytes --]