4.6 Article

UCoin: An Efficient Privacy Preserving Scheme for Cryptocurrencies

期刊

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TDSC.2021.3130952

关键词

Bitcoin; Cryptography; Protocols; Privacy; Blockchains; Public key; Computer architecture; Anonymity; bitcoin; cryptocurrencies; privacy; unlinkability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, a secure mix-based approach called UCoin is proposed to address the issues in preserving privacy of users in cryptocurrencies. It breaks the link between input and output addresses in transactions, utilizes a secure shuffling protocol, and achieves higher performance and compatibility with the existing cryptocurrency architecture.
In cryptocurrencies, privacy of users is preserved using pseudonymity . However, it has been shown that pseudonymity does not result in anonymity if a user's transactions are linkable. This makes cryptocurrencies vulnerable to deanonymization attacks. The current solutions proposed in the literature suffer from at least one of the following issues: (1) requiring a trusted third-party entity, (2) poor performance, and (3) incompatible with the standard structure of cryptocurrencies. In this article, we propose Unlinkable Coin (UCoin), a secure mix-based approach to address these issues. In UCoin, the link between the input (payer) and output (payee) addresses in a transaction is broken. This is done by mixing the transactions of multiple users into a single aggregated transaction in which the output addresses have been secretly shuffled. In our protocol design, we first develop HDC-net, a secure shuffling protocol that enables a group of users to anonymously publish their data. Then, we deploy the proposed HDC-net protocol in the UCoin architecture (as a mixing unit) to generate the aggregate transactions. We show that UCoin (1) does not rely on a trusted third-party, (2) can mix 50 transactions in 6.3 seconds that is 18% faster than the current solutions, and (3) is fully compatible with the architecture of cryptocurrencies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据