How to Incentivize Data-Driven Collaboration Among Competing Parties

The availability of vast amounts of data is changing how we can make medical discoveries, predict global market trends, save energy, and develop educational strategies. In some settings such as Genome Wide Association Studies or deep learning, sheer size of data seems critical. When data is held distributedly by many parties, they must share it to reap its full benefits. One obstacle to this revolution is the lack of willingness of different parties to share data, due to reasons such as loss of privacy or competitive edge. Cryptographic works address privacy aspects, but shed no light on individual parties' losses/gains when access to data carries tangible rewards. Even if it is clear that better overall conclusions can be drawn from collaboration, are individual collaborators better off by collaborating? Addressing this question is the topic of this paper. * We formalize a model of n-party collaboration for computing functions over private inputs in which participants receive their outputs in sequence, and the order depends on their private inputs. Each output "improves" on preceding outputs according to a score function. * We say a mechanism for collaboration achieves collaborative equilibrium if it ensures higher reward for all participants when collaborating (rather than working alone). We show that in general, computing a collaborative equilibrium is NP-complete, yet we design efficient algorithms to compute it in a range of natural model settings. Our collaboration mechanisms are in the standard model, and thus require a central trusted party; however, we show this assumption is unnecessary under standard cryptographic assumptions. We show how to implement the mechanisms in a decentralized way with new extensions of secure multiparty computation that impose order/timing constraints on output delivery to different players, as well as privacy and correctness

On the Impossibility of Surviving (Iterated) Deletion of Weakly Dominated Strategies in Rational MPC

Rational multiparty computation (rational MPC) provides a framework for analyzing MPC protocols through the lens of game theory. One way to judge whether an MPC protocol is rational is through weak domination: Rational players would not adhere to an MPC protocol if deviating never decreases their utility, but sometimes increases it. Secret reconstruction protocols are of particular importance in this setting because they represent the last phase of most (rational) MPC protocols. We show that most secret reconstruction protocols from the literature are not, in fact, stable with respect to weak domination. Furthermore, we formally prove that (under certain assumptions) it is impossible to design a secret reconstruction protocol which is a Nash equlibrium but not weakly dominated if (1) shares are authenticated or (2) half of all players may form a coalition

Fair and Sound Secret Sharing from Homomorphic Time-Lock Puzzles

Achieving fairness and soundness in non-simultaneous rational secret sharing schemes has proved to be challenging. On the one hand, soundness can be ensured by providing side information related to the secret as a check, but on the other, this can be used by deviant players to compromise fairness. To overcome this, the idea of incorporating a time delay was suggested in the literature: in particular, time-delay encryption based on memory-bound functions has been put forth as a solution. In this paper, we propose a different approach to achieve such delay, namely using homomorphic time-lock puzzles (HTLPs), introduced at CRYPTO 2019, and construct a fair and sound rational secret sharing scheme in the non-simultaneous setting from HTLPs. HTLPs are used to embed sub-shares of the secret for a predetermined time. This allows to restore fairness of the secret reconstruction phase, despite players having access to information related to the secret which is required to ensure soundness of the scheme. Key to our construction is the fact that the time-lock puzzles are homomorphic so that players can compactly evaluate sub-shares. Without this efficiency improvement, players would have to independently solve each puzzle sent from the other players to obtain a share of the secret, which would be computationally inefficient. We argue that achieving both fairness and soundness in a non-simultaneous scheme using a time delay based on CPU-bound functions rather than memory-bound functions is more cost effective and realistic in relation to the implementation of the construction

Rational Multiparty Computation

The field of rational cryptography considers the design of cryptographic protocols in the presence of rational agents seeking to maximize local utility functions. This departs from the standard secure multiparty computation setting, where players are assumed to be either honest or malicious. ^ We detail the construction of both a two-party and a multiparty game theoretic framework for constructing rational cryptographic protocols. Our framework specifies the utility function assumptions necessary to realize the privacy, correctness, and fairness guarantees for protocols. We demonstrate that our framework correctly models cryptographic protocols, such as rational secret sharing, where existing work considers equilibrium concepts that yield unreasonable equilibria. Similarly, we demonstrate that cryptography may be applied to the game theoretic domain, constructing an auction market not realizable in the original formulation. Additionally, we demonstrate that modeling players as rational agents allows us to design a protocol that destabilizes coalitions. Thus, we establish a mutual benefit from combining the two fields, while demonstrating the applicability of our framework to real-world market environments.^ We also give an application of game theory to adversarial interactions where cryptography is not necessary. Specifically, we consider adversarial machine learning, where the adversary is rational and reacts to the presence of a data miner. We give a general extension to classification algorithms that returns greater expected utility for the data miner than existing classification methods

On Fairness in Secure Computation

Secure computation is a fundamental problem in modern cryptography in which multiple parties join to compute a function of their private inputs without revealing anything beyond the output of the function. A series of very strong results in the 1980's demonstrated that any polynomial-time function can be computed while guaranteeing essentially every desired security property. The only exception is the fairness property, which states that no player should receive their output from the computation unless all players receive their output. While it was shown that fairness can be achieved whenever a majority of players are honest, it was also shown that fairness is impossible to achieve in general when half or more of the players are dishonest. Indeed, it was proven that even boolean XOR cannot be computed fairly by two parties The fairness property is both natural and important, and as such it was one of the first questions addressed in modern cryptography (in the context of signature exchange). One contribution of this thesis is to survey the many approaches that have been used to guarantee different notions of partial fairness. We then revisit the topic of fairness within a modern security framework for secure computation. We demonstrate that, despite the strong impossibility result mentioned above, certain interesting functions can be computed fairly, even when half (or more) of the parties are malicious. We also provide a new notion of partial fairness, demonstrate feasibility of achieving this notion for a large class of functions, and show impossibility for certain functions outside this class. We consider fairness in the presence of rational adversaries, and, finally, we further study the difficulty of achieving fairness by exploring how much external help is necessary for enabling fair secure computation

Revisiting Secure Two-Party Computation with Rational Players

A seminal result of Cleve (STOC 1986) showed that fairness, in general, is impossible to achieve in case of two-party computation if one of them is malicious. Later, Gordon et al. (STOC 2008, JACM 2011) observed that there exist two distinct classes of functions for which fairness can be achieved. One is any function without an embedded XOR, and the other one is a particular function containing an embedded XOR. In this paper, we revisit both classes of functions in two-party computation under rational players for the first time. We identify that the protocols proposed by Gordon et al. achieve fairness in non-rational setting only. In this direction, we design two protocols, one for the millionares\u27 problem or the greater-than function (any function without embedded XOR can be converted to this function) and the other for the particular embedded XOR function of Gordon et al., and show that with rational players, our protocols achieve fairness, correctness and strict Nash equilibrium under suitable choice of parameters in complete information game setting. The dealer is offline in both of our protocols and this is in contrast with the work of Groce et al. (Eurocrypt 2012) which shows fairness and Bayesian Nash equilibrium in two party computation with rational players for arbitrary function in an incomplete information game setting