From: Phil Fraering <pgf@tyrell.net>
To: stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Message Hash: e34120ac9ef87acf3d6bed3ab25ade3faa435e8955b6e467bea8e9edf3665a1a
Message ID: <199507171153.AA11135@tyrell.net>
Reply To: <199507170827.BAA12420@ix6.ix.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-07-19 01:20:36 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 18:20:36 PDT
From: Phil Fraering <pgf@tyrell.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 18:20:36 PDT
To: stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Here it is; bi-directional dining cryptographers
In-Reply-To: <199507170827.BAA12420@ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199507171153.AA11135@tyrell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Bill, I'll probably go down to the notary's this morning to get the
thing registered; I don't want to pay $ 50.00 to surety for what's
likely to be a one-shot deal.
And I've been leaning towards the side of releasing it into the public
domain anyway, so here goes:
(And besides, I can't believe everyone else missed this; one of you
has got to know about this already):
If Alice and Bob are members of a reasonably non-compromised and
free of colluders dining-cryptographers network, with a protocol for
reserving blocks for the transmission of data packets, then if they
both send a data packet in the same block, they can each read what
the other is saying but to the rest of the DC-net it is garbled.
Since what is broadcast is the XOR of Alice's and Bob's data, Alice can
read Bob's data by XOR'ing the output of the DC-net with her attempted
input; Bob can recover her data the same way.
Comments?
(At the very least, it doubles the bandwidth for the two participants...)
Phil
Return to July 1995
Return to “stewarts@ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart)”