Is quantum bit commitment really possible?

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 78, Issue 17, 1997, Pages 3410-3413

  Lo, Hoi Kwong ^a,b   Chau, H F ^a,c  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY   (United States)

^b HEWLETT PACKARD LABORATORIES   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001260566     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. S. Wiesner, SIGACT News 15, 78 (1983); manuscript written around 1970.
2. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (IEEE, New York, 1984), p. 175.
3. A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
4. For reviews on the subject, see, for example, G. P. Collins, Phys. Today 45, No. 11, 23 (1992); C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and A. K. Ekert, Sci. Am. 267, 50 (1992).
5. For reviews on the subject, see, for example, G. P. Collins, Phys. Today 45, No. 11, 23 (1992); C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and A. K. Ekert, Sci. Am. 267, 50 (1992).
6. For a review, see G. Brassard and C. Crépeau, SIGACT News 27, 13 (1996).
7. Various quantum bit commitment schemes [2,7-9] have been proposed and at least one of them, the so-called Brassard, Crépeau, Jozsa, and Langlois (BCJL) scheme, is even claimed to be provably unbreakable [8]. Quantum bit commitment is an important protocol from which one can construct quantum coin tossing [2,7-9], quantum oblivious mutual identification [10], and quantum oblivious transfer [11-16]. Kilian [17] has shown that, in classical cryptography, oblivious transfer forms the basis of many other protocols including two-party secure computations [17]. This chain of arguments seems to suggest that quantum bit commitment alone is sufficient for implementing two-party secure computations, thus solving a long-standing problem in cryptography.
8. B. Brassard and C. Crépeau, in Advances in Cryptology: Proceedings of Crypto '90, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 537 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991), p. 49.
9. G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, D. Langlois, in Proceedings of the 34th Annual IEEE Symposium on the Foundation of Computer Science, (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, 1993), p. 362.
10. M. Ardehali, Los Alamos Report No. quant-ph/9505019.
11. C. Crépeau and L. Salvail, in Advances in Cryptology-Proceedings of Eurocrypt '95 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995), p. 133.
12. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, and M.-H. Skubiszewska, in Advances in Cryptology: Proceedings of Crypto '91, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 576 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992), p. 351.
13. C. Crépeau, J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2445 (1994).
14. D. Mayers and L. Salvail, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Quantum Computing and Communication, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 1994 (unpublished).
15. D. Mayers, in Advances in Cryptology: Proceedings of Crypto '95, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences Vol. 963 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995), p. 124.
16. M. Ardehali, Los Alamos Report No. quant-ph/9512026.
17. A. C.-C. Yao, in Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1995 (ACM, New York, 1995), p. 67.
18. J. Kilian, in Proceedings of 1988 ACM Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, Chicago, 1988), p. 20.
19. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
20. See, for example, the appendix of L. P. Hughston, R. Jozsa, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Lett. A 83, 14 (1993).
21. D. Mayers, Los Alamos Report No. quant-ph/9603015 (to be published).
22. R. Jozsa, Mod. Opt. 41, 2343 (1994).
23. D. Mayers, following Letter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3414 (1997).
24. H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Physics and Computation, PhysComp' 96, Boston, 1996 (New England Complex Systems Institute, Boston, 1996), p. 76.
25. H.-K. Lo, Los Alamos Report No. quant-ph/9611031 (to be published).