Adeshina Akin Ajayi, Igba Emmanuel, Adesola Dorcas Soyele, Joy Onma Enyejo
This paper explores the integration of quantum cryptography and blockchain technology to address two pressing challenges: securing financial transactions in Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and combating the spread of misinformation during U.S. elections through decentralized social media platforms. As quantum computing advances, traditional encryption methods may become obsolete, posing significant risks to digital financial systems. Quantum cryptography, with its quantum-resistant algorithms, offers enhanced protection for CBDC transactions, ensuring long-term security and privacy. Simultaneously, blockchain-based social media platforms provide a decentralized structure that can prevent the dissemination of false information by ensuring transparency and authenticity through cryptographic verification and consensus mechanisms. These platforms also facilitate decentralized identity management, empowering users to verify content without relying on centralized authorities. By combining quantum cryptography’s secure framework with blockchain’s decentralized transparency, this dual approach creates a more secure digital ecosystem that not only safeguards financial transactions but also strengthens democratic processes. The paper further addresses the regulatory and technical challenges associated with implementing these technologies and their potential to shape a more secure, transparent, and accountable future.
A Zero-Knowledge Proof basically is a protocol between two parties, the Prover and the Verifier, that allows the Prover to convince the Verifier about the truthness of a non trivial statement without revealing any additional information. Zero Knowledge Proofs have found a lot of practical applications covering most of the protocols concerning about data privacy and protocol verification. Examples of that are anonymous cash or electronic voting. The possibility to have real quantum computers with a reasonable size in a near future is forcing the cryptographic community to devise new methods to provide security that resist quantum attacks. Most of the zero-knowledge protocols used nowadays are based on computational problems like the discrete logarithm problem that can no longer be considered hard, since there are known efficient ways to solve them with quantum algorithms. Cryptographic research about the quantum security of zero knowledge proofs started nearly 20 years ago in a very theoretical approach, but not many papers on that topic appeared since then. The goal of this thesis is writing a survey including the main concepts about quantum secure zero-knowledge protocols, the state-of-the-art both from the theoretical and practical approaches, and an exploration of their potential application areas. The survey will be a good starting document for further students willing to do research in this topic.
Private set intersection (PSI) has important application value, however, current quantum PSI protocols are either unsuitable for multi-party scenarios or inefficient. Recently, Imran (arXiv: 2303.17196v3 , 2023) proposed two quantum secure multi-party greatest common divisor (GCD) protocols that can be used for PSI, but with the downside of information leakage and resource consumption. In this paper, we propose a novel quantum secure multi-party GCD protocol that has higher security and lower complexity. To hide privacy, each party randomly selects a coefficient within a range determined by his input integer, and with the assistance of a semi-honest third party TP, all parties secretly calculate the linear combination of their inputs under these coefficients. Once enough linear combinations are collected, TP calculates the GCD of these combinations, which is equal to the GCD of all input integers. To verify the honesty of participants, a quantum zero-knowledge proof sub-protocol is designed. Analysis shows that our GCD protocol is correct and has security against malicious attacks. Moreover, its complexity is polynomial level and lower than Imran’s. Furthermore, we demonstrate the scalability of our GCD protocol in private set operations, such as private set intersection, private set intersection cardinality, private multi-set intersection, etc.
This thesis is the culmination of research conducted between 2019 and 2023. It is divided into three parts. Inthe first part, we explore algorithms related to the Covid-19 pandemic, such as Pool Testing, a well-establishedtechnique where samples from multiple patients are pooled for collective testing, allowing for cost reduction and time savings. We propose algorithms taking into account the a priori probabilities that individual tests are positive, which can be evaluated during a prior clinical examination of the patient. We also examine Pool Testingin emergency situations, where certain samples need to be analyzed according to some prescribed priority order. In both cases, we propose new algorithms and analyze them in detail. This section also deals with DNA privacy preservation in Covid-19 tests. In the second part, we present our results in experimental mathematics, where we have discovered several new conjectures on continued fractions through automated exploration. All those conjectures have been numerically tested to assess their plausibility. Finally, the third part of this thesis is devoted to various results in the field of computer security, such as a previously unknown attack on the Mathematica software, a new protection mechanism against counterfeit medication, and new observations on zero-knowledge proofs.
It is well-known that digital signatures can be constructed from one-way functions in a black-box way. While one-way functions are essentially the minimal assumption in classical cryptography, this is not the case in the quantum setting. A variety of qualitatively weaker and inherently quantum assumptions (e.g. EFI pairs, one-way state generators, and pseudorandom states) are known to be sufficient for non-trivial quantum cryptography. While it is known that commitments, zero-knowledge proofs, and even multiparty computation can be constructed from these assumptions, it has remained an open question whether the same is true for quantum digital signatures schemes (QDS). In this work, we show that there $\textit{does not}$ exist a black-box construction of a QDS scheme with classical signatures from pseudorandom states with linear, or greater, output length. Our result complements that of Morimae and Yamakawa (2022), who described a $\textit{one-time}$ secure QDS scheme with classical signatures, but left open the question of constructing a standard $\textit{multi-time}$ secure one.
Marta Irene García Cid, Dileepsai Bodanapu, Alberto Gatto, Paolo Martelli · 6 authors
A new interactive quantum zero-knowledge protocol for identity authentication implementable in currently available quantum cryptographic devices is proposed and demonstrated. The protocol design involves a verifier and a prover knowing a pre-shared secret, and the acceptance or rejection of the proof is determined by the quantum bit error rate. It has been implemented in modified Quantum Key Distribution devices executing two fundamental cases. In the first case, all players are honest, while in the second case, one of the users is a malicious player. We demonstrate an increase of the quantum bit error rate around 25% in the latter case compared to the case of honesty. The protocol has also been validated for distances from a back-to-back setup to more than 60 km between verifier and prover. The security and robustness of the protocol has been analysed, demonstrating its completeness, soundness and zero-knowledge properties.
We show the following unconditional results on quantum commitments in two related yet different models: 1. We revisit the notion of quantum auxiliary-input commitments introduced by Chailloux, Kerenidis, and Rosgen (Comput. Complex. 2016) where both the committer and receiver take the same quantum state, which is determined by the security parameter, as quantum auxiliary inputs. We show that computationally-hiding and statistically-binding quantum auxiliary-input commitments exist unconditionally, i.e., without relying on any unproven assumption, while Chailloux et al. assumed a complexity-theoretic assumption, ${\bf QIP}\not\subseteq{\bf QMA}$. On the other hand, we observe that achieving both statistical hiding and statistical binding at the same time is impossible even in the quantum auxiliary-input setting. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of unconditionally proving computational security of any form of (classical or quantum) commitments for which statistical security is impossible. As intermediate steps toward our construction, we introduce and unconditionally construct post-quantum sparse pseudorandom distributions and quantum auxiliary-input EFI pairs which may be of independent interest. 2. We introduce a new model which we call the common reference quantum state (CRQS) model where both the committer and receiver take the same quantum state that is randomly sampled by an efficient setup algorithm. We unconditionally prove that there exist statistically hiding and statistically binding commitments in the CRQS model, circumventing the impossibility in the plain model. We also discuss their applications to zero-knowledge proofs, oblivious transfers, and multi-party computations.
Rakesh Saini, Abhiprada Bera, Bikash K. Behera, Emad A. Ahmed · 6 authors
The sixth-generation (6G) network utilizes state-of-the-art machine learning technology and obtains high attention, while the fifth-generation (5G) industry is still developing globally. Unfortunately, 6G encounters challenges to achieve performance superiority, such as scalability, massive connection, integrity, and trust. As a result, future network technologies are migrating away from centralized management entities and toward decentralized and distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain. However, the security of the blockchain is based on the computational complexity of solving specific mathematical problems that are impossible to solve on existing computers in real-time. On the other hand, quantum computers can effortlessly translate such problems with easy decryption. As a result, this study presents an architecture demonstrating the integration of quantum blockchain (QBC) with 6G networks. To show the quantum advantage, highly entangled/secured QBC of 5-, 6-, and 7-qubits are used to create the above system’s quantum circuits. After circuit optimization, mitigation is executed with the efficiency analysis to show the advantage of the error mitigation approach in recreating the state of the QBC circuit and executing on quantum hardware. Furthermore, quantum algorithms of blockchain smart provenience contracts for the cloud-centric Internet of Things (IoT) are proposed, and corresponding quantum circuits are designed. The possible outcomes from these circuits based on the input transaction information are verified.
John Bostanci, Luowen Qian, Nicholas Spooner, Henry Yuen
We prove a tight parallel repetition theorem for $3$-message computationally-secure quantum interactive protocols between an efficient challenger and an efficient adversary. We also prove under plausible assumptions that the security of $4$-message computationally secure protocols does not generally decrease under parallel repetition. These mirror the classical results of Bellare, Impagliazzo, and Naor [BIN97]. Finally, we prove that all quantum argument systems can be generically compiled to an equivalent $3$-message argument system, mirroring the transformation for quantum proof systems [KW00, KKMV07]. As immediate applications, we show how to derive hardness amplification theorems for quantum bit commitment schemes (answering a question of Yan [Yan22]), EFI pairs (answering a question of Brakerski, Canetti, and Qian [BCQ23]), public-key quantum money schemes (answering a question of Aaronson and Christiano [AC13]), and quantum zero-knowledge argument systems. We also derive an XOR lemma [Yao82] for quantum predicates as a corollary.
Summary Secure two‐party computation allows a pair of parties to compute a function together while keeping their inputs private. Ultimately, each party receives only its own correct output. In this paper, a post‐quantum secure two‐party computation protocol is proposed that can be used to effectively block malicious parties. The protocol solves the problems of traditional protocols based on garbled circuits, which are vulnerable to quantum attacks, high communication costs and low computational efficiency. The input garbled keys of the circuit constructor is structured as a Learning with Error (LWE) equation, enabling the circuit constructor to employ a zero‐knowledge proof that demonstrates the uniformity of inputs across all circuits.In the key transfer phase, an LWE‐based batch single‐choice cut‐and‐choose oblivious transfer is proposed to avoid selective failure attacks. In addition, the protocol employs a penalty mechanism to detect if the circuit constructor has generated an incorrect circuit. We have compared the communication overhead of this protocol with three other secure two‐party computation protocols based on Cut‐and‐Choose technology. The analytical results show that this protocol has the best error probability and is resilient to quantum attacks under the malicious adversary model. In addition, with appropriate parameters, the protocol is able to reduce its communication bandwidth by an average of 40.41%.
We present a simple quantum interactive proof (QIP) protocol using the quantum state teleportation (QST) and quantum energy teleportation (QET) protocols. QET is a technique that allows a receiver at a distance to extract the local energy by local operations and classical communication (LOCC), using the energy injected by the supplier as collateral. QET works for any local Hamiltonian with entanglement and, for our study, it is important that getting the ground state of a generic local Hamiltonian is quantum Merlin Arthur (QMA)-hard. The key motivations behind employing QET for these purposes are clarified. Firstly, in cases where a prover possesses the correct state and executes the appropriate operations, the verifier can effectively validate the presence of negative energy with a high probability (Completeness). Failure to select the appropriate operators or an incorrect state renders the verifier incapable of observing negative energy (Soundness). Importantly, the verifier solely observes a single qubit from the prover's transmitted state, while remaining oblivious to the prover's Hamiltonian and state (Zero-knowledge). Furthermore, the analysis is extended to distributed quantum interactive proofs, where we propose multiple solutions for the verification of each player's measurement. The complexity class of our protocol in the most general case belongs to QIP(3)=PSPACE, hence it provides a secure quantum authentication scheme that can be implemented in small quantum communication devices. It is straightforward to extend our protocol to Quantum Multi-Prover Interactive Proof (QMIP) systems, where the complexity is expected to be more powerful (PSPACE$\subset$QMIP=NEXPTIME). In our case, all provers share the ground state entanglement, hence it should belong to a more powerful complexity class QMIP$^*$.
Abstract The rapid advancement of quantum computing has sparked a considerable increase in research attention to quantum technologies. These advances span fundamental theoretical inquiries into quantum information and the exploration of diverse applications arising from this evolving quantum computing paradigm. The scope of the related research is notably diverse. This paper consolidates and presents quantum computing research related to the financial sector. The finance applications considered in this study include portfolio optimization, fraud detection, and Monte Carlo methods for derivative pricing and risk calculation. In addition, we provide a comprehensive analysis of quantum computing’s applications and effects on blockchain technologies, particularly in relation to cryptocurrencies, which are central to financial technology research. As discussed in this study, quantum computing applications in finance are based on fundamental quantum physics principles and key quantum algorithms. This review aims to bridge the research gap between quantum computing and finance. We adopt a two-fold methodology, involving an analysis of quantum algorithms , followed by a discussion of their applications in specific financial contexts. Our study is based on an extensive review of online academic databases, search tools, online journal repositories, and whitepapers from 1952 to 2023, including CiteSeerX, DBLP, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and scientific conference publications. We present state-of-the-art findings at the intersection of finance and quantum technology and highlight open research questions that will be valuable for industry practitioners and academicians as they shape future research agendas.
Ang Liu, Xiu‐Bo Chen, Shengwei Xu, Zhuo Wang · 8 authors
Blockchain technology affords data integrity protection and building trust mechanisms in transactions for distributed networks, and, therefore, is seen as a promising revolutionary information technology. At the same time, the ongoing breakthrough in quantum computation technology contributes toward large-scale quantum computers, which might attack classic cryptography, seriously threatening the classic cryptography security currently employed in the blockchain. As a better alternative, a quantum blockchain has high expectations of being immune to quantum computing attacks perpetrated by quantum adversaries. Although several works have been presented, the problems of impracticality and inefficiency in quantum blockchain systems remain prominent and need to be addressed. First, this paper develops a quantum-secure blockchain (QSB) scheme by introducing a consensus mechanism-quantum proof of authority (QPoA) and an identity-based quantum signature (IQS)-wherein QPoA is used for new block generation and IQS is used for transaction signing and verification. Second, QPoA is developed by adopting a quantum voting protocol to achieve secure and efficient decentralization for the blockchain system, and a quantum random number generator (QRNG) is deployed for randomized leader node election to protect the blockchain system from centralized attacks like distributed denial of service (DDoS). Compared to previous work, our scheme is more practical and efficient without sacrificing security, greatly contributing to better addressing the challenges in the quantum era. Extensive security analysis demonstrates that our scheme provides better protection against quantum computing attacks than classic blockchains. Overall, our scheme presents a feasible solution for blockchain systems against quantum computing attacks through a quantum strategy, contributing toward quantum-secured blockchain in the quantum era.
Most currently used cryptographic tools for protecting data are based on certain computational assumptions, which makes them vulnerable with respect to technological and algorithmic developments, such as quantum computing. One existing option to counter this potential threat is quantum key distribution, whose security is based on the laws of quantum physics. Quantum key distribution is secure against unforeseen technological developments. A second approach is post-quantum cryptography, which is a set of cryptographic primitives that are believed to be secure even against attacks with both classical and quantum computing technologies. From this perspective, this study reviews recent progress in the deployment of the quantum-secured infrastructure based on quantum key distribution, post-quantum cryptography, and their combinations. Various directions in the further development of the full-stack quantum-secured infrastructure are also indicated. Distributed applications, such as blockchains and distributed ledgers, are also discussed.
Given that reliable cloud quantum computers are becoming closer to reality, the concept of delegation of quantum computations and its verifiability is of central interest. Many models have been proposed, each with specific strengths and weaknesses. Here, we put forth a new model where the client trusts only its classical processing, makes no computational assumptions, and interacts with a quantum server in a single round. In addition, during a set-up phase, the client specifies the size $n$ of the computation and receives an untrusted, off-the-shelf (OTS) quantum device that is used to report the outcome of a single measurement. We show how to delegate polynomial-time quantum computations in the OTS model. This also yields an interactive proof system for all of QMA, which, furthermore, we show can be accomplished in statistical zero-knowledge. This provides the first relativistic (one-round), two-prover zero-knowledge proof system for QMA. As a proof approach, we provide a new self-test for n EPR pairs using only constant-sized Pauli measurements, and show how it provides a new avenue for the use of simulatable codes for local Hamiltonian verification. Along the way, we also provide an enhanced version of a well-known stability result due to Gowers and Hatami and show how it completes a common argument used in self-testing.
No system entity within a contemporary distributed cyber system can be entirely trusted. Hence, the classic centralized trust management method cannot be directly applied to it. Blockchain technology is essential to achieving decentralized trust management, its consensus mechanism is useful in addressing large-scale data sharing and data consensus challenges. Herein, an n-party quantum detectable Byzantine agreement (DBA) based on the GHZ state to realize the data consensus in a quantum blockchain is proposed, considering the threat posed by the growth of quantum information technology on the traditional blockchain. Relying on the nonlocality of the GHZ state, the proposed protocol detects the honesty of nodes by allocating the entanglement resources between different nodes. The GHZ state is notably simpler to prepare than other multi-particle entangled states, thus reducing preparation consumption and increasing practicality. When the number of network nodes increases, the proposed protocol provides better scalability and stronger practicability than the current quantum DBA. In addition, the proposed protocol has the optimal fault-tolerant found and does not rely on any other presumptions. A consensus can be reached even when there are n−2 traitors. The performance analysis confirms viability and effectiveness through exemplification. The security analysis also demonstrates that the quantum DBA protocol is unconditionally secure, effectively ensuring the security of data and realizing data consistency in the quantum blockchain.
We propose an application for near-term quantum devices: namely, generating cryptographically certified random bits, to use (for example) in proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies. Our protocol repurposes the existing "quantum supremacy" experiments, based on random circuit sampling, that Google and USTC have successfully carried out starting in 2019. We show that, whenever the outputs of these experiments pass the now-standard Linear Cross-Entropy Benchmark (LXEB), under plausible hardness assumptions they necessarily contain $Ω(n)$ min-entropy, where $n$ is the number of qubits. To achieve a net gain in randomness, we use a small random seed to produce pseudorandom challenge circuits. In response to the challenge circuits, the quantum computer generates output strings that, after verification, can then be fed into a randomness extractor to produce certified nearly-uniform bits -- thereby "bootstrapping" from pseudorandomness to genuine randomness. We prove our protocol sound in two senses: (i) under a hardness assumption called Long List Quantum Supremacy Verification, which we justify in the random oracle model, and (ii) unconditionally in the random oracle model against an eavesdropper who could share arbitrary entanglement with the device. (Note that our protocol's output is unpredictable even to a computationally unbounded adversary who can see the random oracle.) Currently, the central drawback of our protocol is the exponential cost of verification, which in practice will limit its implementation to at most $n\sim 60$ qubits, a regime where attacks are expensive but not impossible. Modulo that drawback, our protocol appears to be the only practical application of quantum computing that both requires a QC and is physically realizable today.
Mauritz Kop is TTLF Fellow and Visiting Scholar at Stanford Law School, Stanford University; Founder of MusicaJuridica and strategic intellectual property lawyer at AIRecht, a technology consultancy firm based in Amsterdam. His present cross-disciplinary, comparative research focuses on human-centred artificial intelligence (AI), the Ethical, Legal, Socio-Economic, and Policy Implications of Quantum Technology (Quantum-ELSPI), and sustainable disruptive innovation policy pluralism. Mateo Aboy is Principal Research Scholar in Biomedical Innovation, Precision Medicine, AI & Law at the LML, University of Cambridge and Affiliated Professor and Fellow at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), University of Copenhagen. Timo Minssen is Professor of Law and the Founding Director of the Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), University of Copenhagen. Specializing in IP, tech-transfer, antitrust and the regulation of health and life science innovation, he is also a senior advisor at the Swedish law firm X-officio and a Quantum Law Researcher at Lund University. Abstract One of the central goals of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and related rights is to incentivize and reward creative and innovative efforts that promote scientific and technical progress and stimulate fair competition through the distribution and commercialization of technologies. Yet, an excessive proliferation of exclusive rights can also result in fundamentally anticompetitive environments with potentially negative effects on scientific research, product development, fair distribution and equitable access to the technology. Hence, a reasonable balance must be found between the stimulation of sustainable innovation and competition, the promotion of scientific research and protection through IPRs. To reconcile these factors, each new technology has led to judicial responses and even modifications to the law. We are on the verge of a technological revolution associated with quantum technologies, including quantum computing and quantum/artificial intelligence hybrids. Its complexity and global significance are creating challenges, which could not have been foreseen when the IP system was developed. This article utilizes the insights gained from qualitative and quantitative studies to (a) inquire which IPRs and related rights are currently directed to quantum computing and (b) examine whether the strategic use of overlapping IPRs might lead to innovation distortions such as excessive anticompetitive effects and underuse associated with property fragmentation. Emphasis is laid on the question if, and if so to what degree, IP portfolio approaches could result in inappropriate proliferations of exclusive rights, raise anticommons concerns and denote unwanted concentrations of first mover market power. It concludes by outlining potential proactive responses to mitigate these risks, while addressing the major future open and closed innovation opportunities, implications and challenges posed by quantum technology in general and quantum computing in particular. Current advances in quantum technology highlight the unique characteristics, promises and perils of quantum technologies—such as the unprecedented capabilities of quantum sensors, secured communications and the potential for quantum computing to solve problems beyond the reach of classical processors by implementing quantum algorithms on programmable quantum computers. The spectrum of potential applications is vast and ranges from uses in health and life sciences (eg, modelling chemical processes at the quantum using quantum simulation) to national security (eg, military uses quantum cryptography, communications and computation). In light of these actual and potential capabilities, national governments have invested over $25 billion into quantum computing research by mid-2021,1 and some reports announce that by September 2021, the quantum technology industry has attracted more than $1 billion in venture capital.2 This will have clear implications not only for the future of business, science, government and the global power game but also for society itself.3 While the predicted consequences of quantum technology remain in part speculative, it becomes increasingly evident that the ethico-legal frameworks for incentivizing, protecting, governing and regulating quantum technologies will have to be carefully studied. These frameworks might potentially have to be adapted—or newly interpreted—considering the new realities presented by second-generation (2G) quantum devices. International organizations, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), have therefore engaged in developing ‘the first set of principles for responsible design and adoption of quantum computing technologies in order to incentivize the development of the technology while minimizing the possible risks’.4 Consequently, scrutinizing the existing framework for IPRs and how they apply to quantum computing, including their governance and regulatory dimensions, as well the interplay of IPRs with new forms of potentially closed or more decentralized and open innovation systems, are becoming ever more relevant. One of the primary goals of IPRs and related rights, such as patents, copyrights, trade secrets and trade marks, is to reward and protect creative and innovative efforts in order to promote scientific and technical progress, as well as stimulating fair competition through the distribution and commercialization of technologies.5 For example, an effective and predictable patent protection regime is generally regarded as necessary to encourage risky and costly research in complex technologies that take a long time to reach the market but are relatively easy to copy such as many pharmaceuticals. Other IPRs, such as trade secrets, could become more relevant regarding highly complex technologies that are not so easy to copy and face less regulatory barriers. However, overprotection through IPRs can also lead to a situation that would create a fundamentally anticompetitive environment.6 For example, a proliferation of patent rights upstream could potentially hinder essential innovations further downstream in the course of scientific research and product development because each upstream patent allows its owner to create another obstacle on the road to product development, adding to the cost and slowing the pace of downstream innovation.7 Dealing with this potential dilemma, commonly referred to as the ‘Tragedy of the Anticommons’, requires a reasonable balance to be found between the stimulation of innovation competition, the enhancement of scientific research and the careful protection of intellectual property rights.8 To maintain such a reasonable balance, each new technology has involved modifications to the law. This is nothing new. The first patents, during the Industrial Revolution, were mostly directed to mechanical devices and articles of manufacture. When chemical law the existing framework to solve new problems posed by and of based on and by the of and as well as in and have also led to many and a of law and We are currently on the verge of a new technological revolution associated with quantum technologies, including quantum its complexity might create challenges, which could have been foreseen when the system was this this article (a) which IPRs and rights would be to quantum technology and (b) an of whether the strategic use of of IP rights to the of a quantum IP portfolio potentially might lead to anticompetitive of market and competition and In this it would progress in an of quantum quantum will therefore be laid on the question if, and if so to what degree, overlapping IPRs could result in an inappropriate of global exclusive rights for first and in an unwanted of market power. To these this article will first with an of what quantum computing and how it can be will which of IP are at present the of quantum will these the first of on the patent for quantum will use the insights gained from qualitative and quantitative studies to the implications and possible responses to to mitigate and to future based on the of and Quantum computing its from principles of quantum (eg, and the of the Quantum the between and and the of at the beyond classical including such as and the of is the of the the of of such as of and Quantum and general are to be in an that the of at Quantum or are the quantum of can be a or a or a of We this with a a quantum in of possible quantum In to quantum can be while of each This is as quantum quantum to the in which a potential that is in For these are quantum In quantum computing is for some of the problems on which such as and for the of and Quantum are when modelling or of using quantum These at complex However, quantum also have For example, quantum can to complex and such as the but they to these The of artificial intelligence (eg, and quantum and can solve and chemical can problems that are currently not with the of classical computers. AI and quantum computing of based on classical and to artificial AI algorithms using classical with quantum algorithms that principles has the potential to including in the of and computing is to In the between quantum technology and AI the a new on science that quantum quantum and quantum will an in the development of artificial and the of is the between quantum computing and intellectual property Quantum can be by of intellectual and property rights, such as rights patents, copyrights, trade secrets, design rights and trade We which IP rights can be of these be it or We also whether are in protection and whether are IP rights are rights, these as as possible from the of an IP be in and and of protection in the or the Quantum on their in the and on their the of the technology quantum and quantum the of quantum processors such as and quantum the and the the the and quantum the the quantum set quantum quantum quantum the quantum and and quantum computing and the and the actual or of a quantum a quantum a a and a In a is to access the of the quantum in and This is a of through the In are with quantum and AI have to the of the AI system to this of including the that processes the and that are patent so by a can be generally a of and a and technical to technical problems that have been and into of articles of and processes are for patent While and are not might potentially algorithms and to the that is directed to a technical result or and if it is a of an that a technical can be further by the of IP rights, can the of a quantum by rights, design and and creative and algorithms or These can to the potential for the of these algorithms to solve technological problems as and system that technical to a technical The protection for is generally as it is also by the of to the life of the for One of the for this is that the system and the patent system have In quantum computing is more to and than the and It requires more to the than to the a the and devices necessary to become to and as in trade between the and The patent system to incentivize to and market their with the of on It to encourage the of innovative and the of research and development by exclusive rights to the the or its the it to design and and of can be In of and are from The are for patent the technology quantum and quantum the of quantum processors such as and quantum and the and the the the and the the quantum set and quantum The computing can be by as The including its quantum and is also for it the of and Quantum computing algorithms are not they are However, the of quantum algorithms to solve technical problems can potentially be patent These are using and system that to be in an to they the in the and technical in to incentivize and technological progress and of of is to stimulate and of by of to on the of their to the World on and the World creative of and can be by as if they are the of is not its The that is by general principles and are not The are part of the the of an is in a it can be by an can also be by a The are for quantum the quantum and and quantum computing and the and These the of these are of creative and in a of It is possible that for quantum computing will be of or for use with classical computing, it is that and will into the and some for is not by This the question of whether and be by for and of and can be IP whether or patents, in a to trade secrets, which generally on the quantum computing system of It is also possible to from a classical computing into a quantum the In of AI that of the is in the these IP a of potential IP rights potentially in the that to be including a on the the for the of AI and are concerns and of is a of in the existing because they are and not for AI and for to be a or even a to for quantum computing that and In quantum computing IP this is for IP It can be or IP rights on the can also be and into the or by upstream or downstream be The and and society from a IP rights can only be by such as or or to rights and and be These in an of and patents, of a quantum can trade in some trade and trade with potentially of law and national security beyond the of the IP a in technological a is the with AI and some technologies, the of quantum computing systems, with the of trade rights, could a trade secrets to protect and quantum computing applications and quantum This might of of technology to the and that a trade not protect This IP can be by that unwanted a quantum and design can be and modelling on the for which protection is by an of IP such as design rights, rights and trade using a of IP rights to and protect the of the IP portfolio of the quantum owner could result in an of global exclusive rights for first of essential in is a that are in IP protection from is a potential of IP protection this new of rights not Other quantum technologies—such as quantum quantum and the quantum for IP protection using the of IP a innovation law future quantum to be and Its and could be by an of IP rights, with each The to quantum sensors, quantum and and devices with the of quantum technology. it is the with technologies, IP framework is not with quantum technology in IP is to be an in time and the that can be for the essential of quantum technologies be to equitable a and sustainable innovation policy it could be that IP rights not be to the of their and It might well be to in a quantum technology It could be to such in an intellectual property have been have further that quantum technology and not to be by IP or beyond the it has been that is ‘Tragedy of the on quantum technology be IP incentivize market and market at the For to encourage fair competition and market IP law to be with antitrust The question is whether the in and IP overprotection could create for market and raise concerns regarding fair competition, of and the of new might hinder innovation and could potentially lead to the ‘Tragedy of the that have been for many in the In this an anticommons which would underuse by rights by a of IP portfolio and patent could progress in an of quantum quantum In trade in property anticommons In protection might have a negative on the and protection to the that are in the of technologies and to remain It is to and carefully these and to take proactive it necessary based on the insights gained from technological approaches must also take into and the for of IP These can have effects if and with the of the IP system and its forms of and forms of governing IP as well as to IP protection must be on the and a of and it is in further that such approaches are by studies that and While this apply to IPRs and rights, the will the of such an that has on the and in quantum We a patent to including the has been the over the for quantum and are the quantum what are to protect these more IP research to these of it is for and to they can to existing and regulatory with reasonable of in this present from a more patent on the of quantum computing with the of from the actual in this technical the use the International by the of The a system to to technical that is are into and The is an of the It is by the and & and the by In this patent use of the system to related to quantum patent the new to the technical of quantum computing to the quantum computing with a of the that have been by the and computing, based on by the of the patent For the of patent are as the of and We a of quantum computing from and that of these have been of the patent protection for quantum computing has in the of the patent that these quantum computing with directed to and for quantum processors or (eg, quantum quantum quantum and quantum (eg, of quantum such as quantum quantum and quantum access and of quantum algorithms (eg, algorithms based on quantum applications of the quantum and and quantum and quantum (eg, quantum computing, for and quantum and quantum of in quantum computing at the and The of that the and are currently over quantum computing of the in quantum computing patent has of that the of in was the as in in the the of quantum computing from to This to a of which is than the for quantum technologies over this in the has been the of for quantum computing The has of the the the has only that have been quantum computing, has been the of for of the quantum technology but in the of quantum computing, it for a to the the patent has the in the of quantum computing in or that not are to result in distortions regarding the of patent for for patent law (eg, for quantum to be of the the patent for and quantum computing as well as the of their that and currently have the patent in quantum These with were in the of quantum computing and some of the with However, to they have their over the patent quantum and of that new can patent portfolio this is not only possible for such as which in and by based on the of but also for an a firm on quantum processors for quantum computing systems, the patent of technology such as and This is an IP is new to the to their to their innovations to For example, the to design and its This has in the of of the quantum a quantum on quantum processors for quantum computing and a for quantum in patent on quantum such as and can their quantum computing from their and but these new have to from based on the of their IP the of the and the of or a on a new on quantum computing, it the potential for technology and disruptive innovation from new on quantum of the patent less than in the classical computing and In to and and that and new are the For billion more quantum computing than market market or billion market In that patent protection will be more for the new and and on quantum (eg, than for the technology currently the classical computing and the of quantum that have and are in the of the patent applications have not been and are also part of the This is highly relevant from a policy to trade secrets, these patent to raise the of for patent they from these and it more to of protection for patent In this to their which in effective patent and for trade secrets to and and quantum computing the of quantum computing that the patent system is in a technical trade secrets be a IP to the of the (eg, the quantum can be and secured at the from the and even these can be access through the with the and the that and be in the In it is that the quantum computing that in this will be in the by the time the market a to the by technology market patent rights would incentivize to patent protection it requires in for in of trade secrets that can be as long as the secrets are secured and their of from their market and patent the have these of and are more to patent their in order to the exclusive property rights and venture in a are in the In this a for are also to their through the patent system as to as trade These be into when and and regulatory related to quantum has that it is for IP frameworks to disruptive technologies and their on the IP as it is to the of the IP system on the of such technologies. to encourage fair competition and market IP law to be and with regulatory law and antitrust as well as the by and These approaches in for such as the and the global competition in quantum technology that governments and will have to carefully such and the interplay between IPRs and related rights with quantum For quantum IPRs be as part of the new IP which regulatory such as the AI the the and to the This IP promises an intellectual property system to to technologies advances in and The to set global in The in the protection of the of IP by and the of and of IP a global to the pace of innovation in the Quantum was to IP protection for and and including the of the These could apply to and is when such Yet, the of exclusive with or to encourage and innovation the quantum In this a innovation that possible (eg, access and and (eg, and reward and that is to and decentralized innovation However, it is also evident that many will face and challenges, from potential of the in of the or that ‘Tragedy of the to global competition and with to the protection and of quantum technology. This not that new approaches quantum technology not be might be if problems with the IP system are or Yet, patent on quantum computing the patent system is as to the system be based on and of to the IP system to promote the and the challenges posed by quantum computing must also be based on a of the IP how the forms of protection and to what a and of IP and can mitigate unwanted While for anticommons and the related of the patent to have in the technology patent for the quantum computing is not a and as actual or potential by patent protection or of the IP such as the of the IP system for unwanted overlapping can be from and of the patent can be with and the IP for the patent this would the and of the and of the on the as well as careful to the and into the patent at the patent It is clear that this would also patent the and in the the of the patent or of the to the of by of the are more or less and a more of each of the have a or more on the of protection of patents, the and of what as well as on the of protection for technologies or even IP For the future of quantum technologies and quantum computing, the question is to the and in order to the for the enhancement of innovation and the of upstream patent some the of an with to the in a of These ‘the effects of factors, such as for scientific and the of innovation, and that might for technological could also be the framework for research and or possible that can be found the of patent In that some have a more and but of competition or antitrust Other and to such as and The in the of patent or These would the exclusive rights but the into While it how these are in technology these to or in the patent system and potential anticommons by it possible for patent to use forms of or to their rights into property rights not be to solve problems that they were to on the IP rights not be the only not the innovation and could apply innovation policy and IP such as antitrust law and and as well as and to and balance the effects of innovation the innovation and reward and industry and more between when regulatory IP rights might be less in a and and distribution become in the if a fair global distribution of quantum technologies is the it will be to on and technology to and on a This article qualitative on potential IP overprotection of quantum technologies to the IPRs could denote an inappropriate of global exclusive rights for first result in market and for quantum and to anticommons concerns including underuse by quantitative that IP overprotection requires a of existing IP for quantum technologies, to or IP and an unwanted of market power. In to to these the article on patent to quantum computers. found that to be so such patent overprotection problems in the quantum computing to the that their consequences would hinder innovation in this of quantum as more and more quantum patent the an quantum computing However, in by trade secrets or secrets, remain the of as these innovations is not by set and be or to potential innovation by IPRs and antitrust in the quantum computing must maintain a and with and In this quantum is the In law policy a regime that a between and overprotection of regime that for an innovation while and to first and their The that this is not a is by IP which a that between of and In have to regarding for open or closed innovation systems, into to access and In it is to these and and to take proactive it necessary based on the insights gained from research, and technological approaches take into and the for of IP protection and their interplay with antitrust in quantum computing, quantum and quantum the time is for research and the to new and intellectual property that encourage competition and incentivize sustainable These must the balance between rights technology national security policy and the of a global quantum while rights and and quantum and law further the of IP portfolio trade and secrets, patent and new of property industry and quantum and research These are for further scientific
We propose a new, unifying framework that yields an array of cryptographic primitives with certified deletion. These primitives enable a party in possession of a quantum ciphertext to generate a classical certificate that the encrypted plaintext has been information-theoretically deleted, and cannot be recovered even given unbounded computational resources. - For X \in {public-key, attribute-based, fully-homomorphic, witness, timed-release}, our compiler converts any (post-quantum) X encryption to X encryption with certified deletion. In addition, we compile statistically-binding commitments to statistically-binding commitments with certified everlasting hiding. As a corollary, we also obtain statistically-sound zero-knowledge proofs for QMA with certified everlasting zero-knowledge assuming statistically-binding commitments. - We also obtain a strong form of everlasting security for two-party and multi-party computation in the dishonest majority setting. While simultaneously achieving everlasting security against all parties in this setting is known to be impossible, we introduce everlasting security transfer (EST). This enables any one party (or a subset of parties) to dynamically and certifiably information-theoretically delete other participants' data after protocol execution. We construct general-purpose secure computation with EST assuming statistically-binding commitments, which can be based on one-way functions or pseudorandom quantum states. We obtain our results by developing a novel proof technique to argue that a bit b has been information-theoretically deleted from an adversary's view once they output a valid deletion certificate, despite having been previously information-theoretically determined by the ciphertext they held in their view. This technique may be of independent interest.
As blockchain technology and cryptocurrency become increasingly mainstream, ever-increasing energy costs required to maintain the computational power running these decentralized platforms create a market for more energy-efficient hardware. Photonic cryptographic hash functions, which use photonic integrated circuits to accelerate computation, promise energy efficiency for verifying transactions and mining in a cryptonetwork. Like many analog computing approaches, however, current proposals for photonic cryptographic hash functions that promise similar security guarantees as Bitcoin are susceptible to systematic error, so multiple devices may not reach a consensus on computation despite high numerical precision (associated with low photodetector noise). In this paper, we theoretically and experimentally demonstrate that a more general family of robust discrete analog cryptographic hash functions, which we introduce as LightHash, leverages integer matrix-vector operations on photonic mesh networks of interferometers. The difficulty of LightHash can be adjusted to be sufficiently tolerant to systematic error (calibration error, loss error, coupling error, and phase error) and preserve inherent security guarantees present in the Bitcoin protocol. Finally, going beyond our proof-of-concept, we define a ``photonic advantage'' criterion and justify how recent developments in CMOS optoelectronics (including analog-digital conversion) provably achieve such advantage for robust and digitally-verifiable photonic computing and ultimately generate a new market for decentralized photonic technology.
Muhammad Asad Ullah, Jason William Setiawan, Junaid ur Rehman, Hyundong Shin
Blockchain has revolutionized many fields, such as distributed sensor networks, finance, and cryptocurrency. Consensus between distributed network nodes is at the core of such blockchain technologies. The three primary performance measures for any consensus algorithm are scalability, security, and decentralization. This paper evaluates the usefulness and practicality of quantum consensus algorithms for blockchain-enhanced sensor, and computing networks and evaluates them against the aforementioned performance measures. In particular, we investigate their noise robustness against quantum decoherence in quantum processors and over fiber-optic channels. We observe that the quantum noise generally increases the error rate in the list distribution. However, the effect is variable on different quantum consensus schemes. For example, the entanglement-free scheme is more affected than entanglement-based schemes for the local noise cases, while in the case of noisy optical fiber links, the effect is prominent on all quantum consensus schemes. We infer that the current quantum protocols with noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices and noisy quantum communication can only be employed for modular units in intraenterprise-level blockchain, such as Zilliqa, for sensor, and computing networks.
Quantum entanglement has shown distinguished features beyond any classical state. Many methods have been presented to verify unknown entanglement with the complete information about the density matrices by quantum state tomography. In this work, we aim to identify unknown entanglement with only partial information of the state space. The witness consists of a generalized Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-like paradox expressed by Pauli observables, and a nonlinear entanglement witness expressed by density matrix elements. First, we verify unknown bipartite entanglement and study the robustness of entanglement witnesses against the white noise. Second, we generalize such verification to partially unknown multipartite entangled states, including the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-type and W-type states. Third, we give a quantum-information application related to the quantum zero-knowledge proof. It further provides a useful method in blindly verifying universal quantum computation resources. These results may be interesting in entanglement theories, quantum communication, and quantum networks.
The methods of data verification are discussed, which are intended for the distant control of autonomous mobile robotic agents via networks, combining optical data links. The problem of trust servers is considered for position verification and position-based cryptography tasks. In order to obtain flexible quantum and classical verification procedures, one should use the collective interaction of agents and network nodes, including some elements of the blockchain. Multiple-valued logic functions defined within discrete k-valued Allen–Givone algebra are proposed for the logically linked list of entries and the distributed ledger, which can be used for distant data verification and breakdown restoration in mobile agents with the help of partner network nodes. A distributed ledger scheme involves the assigning by distant partners of random hash values, which further can be used as keys for access to a set of distributed data storages, containing verification and restoration data. Multiple-valued logic procedures are simple and clear enough for high-dimensional logic modelling and for the design of combined quantum and classical protocols.