Must the Communication Graph of MPC Protocols be an Expander?

Secure multiparty computation (MPC) on incomplete communication networks has been studied within two primary models: (1) Where a partial network is fixed a priori, and thus corruptions can occur dependent on its structure, and (2) Where edges in the communication graph are determined dynamically as part of the protocol. Whereas a rich literature has succeeded in mapping out the feasibility and limitations of graph structures supporting secure computation in the fixed-graph model (including strong classical lower bounds), these bounds do not apply in the latter dynamic-graph setting, which has recently seen exciting new results, but remains relatively unexplored. In this work, we initiate a similar foundational study of MPC within the dynamic-graph model. As a first step, we investigate the property of graph expansion. All existing protocols (implicitly or explicitly) yield communication graphs which are expanders, but it is not clear whether this is inherent. Our results consist of two types (for constant fraction of corruptions): * Upper bounds: We demonstrate secure protocols whose induced communication graphs are not expander graphs, within a wide range of settings (computational, information theoretic, with low locality, even with low locality and adaptive security) each assuming some form of input-independent setup. * Lower bounds: In the setting without setup and adaptive corruptions, we demonstrate that for certain functionalities, no protocol can maintain a non-expanding communication graph against all adversarial strategies. Our lower bound relies only on protocol correctness (not privacy), and requires a surprisingly delicate argument. More generally, we provide a formal framework for analyzing the evolving communication graph of MPC protocols, giving a starting point for studying the relation between secure computation and further, more general graph properties

Breaking the O(n)O(\sqrt n)-Bit Barrier: Byzantine Agreement with Polylog Bits Per Party

Byzantine agreement (BA), the task of $n$ parties to agree on one of their input bits in the face of malicious agents, is a powerful primitive that lies at the core of a vast range of distributed protocols. Interestingly, in protocols with the best overall communication, the demands of the parties are highly unbalanced: the amortized cost is $\tilde O(1)$ bits per party, but some parties must send $\Omega(n)$ bits. In best known balanced protocols, the overall communication is sub-optimal, with each party communicating $\tilde O(\sqrt{n})$. In this work, we ask whether asymmetry is inherent for optimizing total communication. Our contributions in this line are as follows: 1) We define a cryptographic primitive, succinctly reconstructed distributed signatures (SRDS), that suffices for constructing $\tilde O(1)$ balanced BA. We provide two constructions of SRDS from different cryptographic and Public-Key Infrastructure (PKI) assumptions. 2) The SRDS-based BA follows a paradigm of boosting from "almost-everywhere" agreement to full agreement, and does so in a single round. We prove that PKI setup and cryptographic assumptions are necessary for such protocols in which every party sends $o(n)$ messages. 3) We further explore connections between a natural approach toward attaining SRDS and average-case succinct non-interactive argument systems (SNARGs) for a particular type of NP-Complete problems (generalizing Subset-Sum and Subset-Product). Our results provide new approaches forward, as well as limitations and barriers, towards minimizing per-party communication of BA. In particular, we construct the first two BA protocols with $\tilde O(1)$ balanced communication, offering a tradeoff between setup and cryptographic assumptions, and answering an open question presented by King and Saia (DISC'09)