[Cryptography] Proposal of a fair contract signing protocol

Sidney Markowitz sidney at sidney.com
Thu Jun 30 21:27:45 EDT 2016

mok-kong shen wrote on 1/07/16 3:50 AM:
> In step 1, Alice commits to the promise P and X of virtual crypto,
> nothing more nor less.

Then in Step 1 Alice commits to Promise P, which makes P an unfair contract.

> in the last revision of my scheme I don't even mention T. The
> pre-condition of my fairness definition is simply: IF a contract
> (proposed by one partner, here e.g. Alice) C (ever) comes into being.

According to your fairness definition: promise P is a contract that is
proposed by Alice, that comes into being in Step 1, is committed to by Alice
and not by Bob in Step 1 and is therefore unfair.

Using only your own definitions, you have specified a protocol in which a
Contract C can be committed to by Alice and Bob in a fair fashion by having
Alice first commit to unfair contract P.


More information about the cryptography mailing list