Score:0

Several Discrete Logarithm Zero Knowledge Proof

ph flag

According to Wiki there is an approach for proving knowledge of $x$ such that $g^x = y$. How can I prove that I know $x_1, x_2$ such that $g^{x_1} = y_1, g^{x_2}=y_2$. Of course, I can make these proofs separately but I would like to combine them into a single one. My idea is to prove that I know such $x = x_1 + x_2$ that $g^x = y_1 y_2$. But is it safe? Does not it make the system vulnerable?

Score:0
my flag

But is it safe?

Well, knowledge of $x_1 + x_2$ does not imply that you know either $x_1$ or $x_2$.

On the other hand, if you were to prove knowledge of $r_1x_1 + r_2x_2$, for a random (e.g. selected by the verifier or a Random Oracle) $r_1, r_2$ values, that would be a zero knowledge proof of knowledge of both $x_1, x_2$

This can be done by extending the single-exponent zero knowledge proof in a fairly simple way:

  • Prover sends $g^v$ to the verifier (for some random $v$)

  • Verifier sends random $c, d$ to the prover

  • Prover sends $r = v - cx_1 - dx_2$ to verifier

  • Verifier accepts if $g^v = g^r (g^{x_1})^c (g^{x_2})^d$

Кирилл Волков avatar
ph flag
Can $c$ and $d$ be generated via a hash function?
poncho avatar
my flag
@КириллВолков: yes; for my example, I did the interactive version - it's straight-forward to turn it into a noninteractive protocol
Кирилл Волков avatar
ph flag
Thank you very much!!
Кирилл Волков avatar
ph flag
Can I extend the algorithm for $x_1, x_2, x_3, \ldots, x_n$ in the same way?
poncho avatar
my flag
@КириллВолков: yes, it works in the obvious way.
Кирилл Волков avatar
ph flag
Maybe you know, where I can find the proof of the proposed scheme?
mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.