Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Electronic colloquium on computational complexity

Coin Flipping of Any Constant Bias Implies One-Way Functions.

Itay Berman, Iftach Haitner, Aris Tentes

Published Jan 1, 2015• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

We show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against any nontrivial constant bias (e.g., .499) implies the existence of one-way functions. This improves upon a result of Haitner and Omri (FOCS’11), who proved this implication for protocols with bias √ 2−1/2 − o(1) t .207. Unlike the result of Haitner and Omri, our result also holds for weak coin-flipping protocols.

Related papers

Coin Flipping of Any Constant Bias Implies One-Way Functions

Itay Berman, Iftach Haitner, Aris Tentes

We show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against any nontrivial constant bias (e.g., .499) implies the existence of one-way functions. This improves upon a result of Haitner and Omri (FOCS’11), who proved this implication for protocols with bias √ 2−1/2 − o (1) ≈ .207. Unlike the result of Haitner and Omri, our result also holds for weak coin-flipping protocols.

Journal of the ACM•Mar 13, 2018•12 citations

Coin Flipping of \emph{Any} Constant Bias Implies One-Way Functions

Itay Berman, Iftach Haitner, Aris Tentes

We show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against \emph{any} non-trivial constant bias (\eg $.499$) implies the existence of one-way functions. This improves upon a recent result of Haitner and Omri [FOCS '11], who proved this implication for protocols with bias $\frac{\sqrt2 -1}2 - o(1) \approx .207$. Unlike the result of Haitner and Omri, our result also holds for \emph{weak} coin-flipping protocols.

arXiv:2105.01400•May 4, 2021•0 citations

Coin flipping of any constant bias implies one-way functions

Itay Berman, Iftach Haitner, Aris Tentes

We show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against any non-trivial constant bias (e.g., .499) implies the existence of one-way functions. This improves upon a recent result of Haitner and Omri [FOCS '11], who proved this implication for protocols with bias [EQUATION] -- o(1) ≈ .207. Unlike the result of Haitner and Omri, our result also holds for weak coin-flipping protocols.

ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)•May 31, 2014•10 citations

Computational Complexity Implications of Secure Coin-Flipping

Aris Tentes

Modern Cryptography is based on computational intractability assumptions, e.g., Factoring, Discrete Logarithm, Diffie-Helman etc. However, since an assumption might be proven incorrect, there has been a lot of focus in order to construct cryptographic primitives based on the possibly most minimal assumption. The most popular minimal assumption, which is implied by the existence of almost all cryptographic primitives, is the existence of One Way Functions. Coin-Flipping protocols are known to be implied by One-Way Functions, however, a complete characterization of the inverse direction is not known. There was even speculation that weak notions of Coin Flipping Protocols might be strictly weaker than One Way Functions. In this thesis we show that even very weak notions of Coin Flipping protocols do imply One Way Functions. In particular we show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against any non-trivial constant bias (e.g., .499) implies the existence of One Way Functions. This improves upon a recent result of Haitner and Omri [FOCS ’11], who proved this implication for protocols with bias √ 2−1 2 − o(1) ≈ .207. Unlike the former result result, our result also holds for weak coin-flipping protocols.

•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations

Coin Flipping with Constant Bias Implies One-Way Functions

Iftach Haitner, Eran Omri

It is well known (cf. Impagliazzo and Luby [in Proceedings of the 30th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1989, pp. 230--235]) that the existence of almost all “interesting" cryptographic applications, i.e., ones that cannot hold information theoretically, implies one-way functions. An important exception where the above implication is not known, however, is the case of coin-flipping protocols. Such protocols allow honest parties to mutually flip an unbiased coin, while guaranteeing that even a cheating (efficient) party cannot bias the output of the protocol by much. Impagliazzo and Luby proved that coin-flipping protocols that are safe against negligible bias do imply one-way functions, and, very recently, Maji, Prabhakaran, and Sahai [in Proceedings of the 2001 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2010, pp. 613--622] proved the same for constant-round protocols (with any nontrivial bias). For the general case, however, no such implication was known. We make progress towards answering the above fundamental question, showing that (strong) coin-flipping protocols safe against a constant bias (concretely, $\frac{\sqrt2 -1}2 - o(1)$) imply one-way functions.

SIAM Journal on Computing•Jan 1, 2014•17 citations

Coin Flipping with Constant Bias Implies One-Way Functions

Iftach Haitner, Eran Omri

It is well known (cf., Impagliazzo and Luby [FOCS '89]) that the existence of almost all "interesting" cryptographic applications, i.e., ones that cannot hold information theoretically, implies one-way functions. An important exception where the above implication is not known, however, is the case of coin-flipping protocols. Such protocols allow honest parties to mutually flip an unbiased coin, while guaranteeing that even a cheating (efficient) party cannot bias the output of the protocol by much. Impagliazzo and Luby proved that coin-flipping protocols that are safe against negligible bias do imply one-way functions, and, very recently, Maji, Prabhakaran, and Sahai [FOCS '10] proved the same for constant-round protocols (with any non-trivial bias). For the general case, however, no such implication was known. We make progress towards answering the above fundamental question, showing that (strong) coin-flipping protocols safe against a constant bias (concretely, (√2 -1)/2 - o(1)) imply one-way functions.

Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science•Oct 1, 2011•18 citations
We show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against any nontrivial constant bias (e.g., .499) implies the existence of one-way functions. This improves upon a result of Haitner and Omri (FOCS’11), who proved this implication for protocols with bias √ 2−1/2 − o(1) t .207. Unlike the result of Haitner and Omri, our result also holds for weak coin-flipping protocols.
We show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against \emph{any} non-trivial constant bias (\eg .499.499.499) implies the existence of one-way functions. This improves upon a recent result of Haitner and Omri [FOCS '11], who proved this implication for protocols with bias 2−12−o(1)≈.207\frac{\sqrt2 -1}2 - o(1) \approx .20722​−1​−o(1)≈.207. Unlike the result of Haitner and Omri, our result also holds for \emph{weak} coin-flipping protocols.
Modern Cryptography is based on computational intractability assumptions, e.g., Factoring, Discrete Logarithm, Diffie-Helman etc. However, since an assumption might be proven incorrect, there has been a lot of focus in order to construct cryptographic primitives based on the possibly most minimal assumption. The most popular minimal assumption, which is implied by the existence of almost all cryptographic primitives, is the existence of One Way Functions. Coin-Flipping protocols are known to be implied by One-Way Functions, however, a complete characterization of the inverse direction is not known. There was even speculation that weak notions of Coin Flipping Protocols might be strictly weaker than One Way Functions. In this thesis we show that even very weak notions of Coin Flipping protocols do imply One Way Functions. In particular we show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against any non-trivial constant bias (e.g., .499) implies the existence of One Way Functions. This improves upon a recent result of Haitner and Omri [FOCS ’11], who proved this implication for protocols with bias √ 2−1 2 − o(1) ≈ .207. Unlike the former result result, our result also holds for weak coin-flipping protocols.
It is well known (cf. Impagliazzo and Luby [in Proceedings of the 30th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1989, pp. 230--235]) that the existence of almost all “interesting" cryptographic applications, i.e., ones that cannot hold information theoretically, implies one-way functions. An important exception where the above implication is not known, however, is the case of coin-flipping protocols. Such protocols allow honest parties to mutually flip an unbiased coin, while guaranteeing that even a cheating (efficient) party cannot bias the output of the protocol by much. Impagliazzo and Luby proved that coin-flipping protocols that are safe against negligible bias do imply one-way functions, and, very recently, Maji, Prabhakaran, and Sahai [in Proceedings of the 2001 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2010, pp. 613--622] proved the same for constant-round protocols (with any nontrivial bias). For the general case, however, no such implication was known. We make progress towards answering the above fundamental question, showing that (strong) coin-flipping protocols safe against a constant bias (concretely, 2−12−o(1)\frac{\sqrt2 -1}2 - o(1)22​−1​−o(1)) imply one-way functions.
It is well known (cf., Impagliazzo and Luby [FOCS '89]) that the existence of almost all "interesting" cryptographic applications, i.e., ones that cannot hold information theoretically, implies one-way functions. An important exception where the above implication is not known, however, is the case of coin-flipping protocols. Such protocols allow honest parties to mutually flip an unbiased coin, while guaranteeing that even a cheating (efficient) party cannot bias the output of the protocol by much. Impagliazzo and Luby proved that coin-flipping protocols that are safe against negligible bias do imply one-way functions, and, very recently, Maji, Prabhakaran, and Sahai [FOCS '10] proved the same for constant-round protocols (with any non-trivial bias). For the general case, however, no such implication was known. We make progress towards answering the above fundamental question, showing that (strong) coin-flipping protocols safe against a constant bias (concretely, (√2 -1)/2 - o(1)) imply one-way functions.