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

Why Quantum Bit Commitment And Ideal Quantum Coin Tossing Are Impossible

Hoi-kwong Lo, H. F. Chau

Published Jan 1, 1996• 172 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

There had been well known claims of unconditionally secure quantum protocols for bit commitment. However, we, and independently Mayers, showed that all proposed quantum bit commitment schemes are, in principle, insecure because the sender, Alice, can almost always cheat successfully by using an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) type of attack and delaying her measurements. One might wonder if secure quantum bit commitment protocols exist at all. We answer this question by showing that the same type of attack by Alice will, in principle, break any bit commitment scheme. The cheating strategy generally requires a quantum computer. We emphasize the generality of this ``no-go theorem'': Unconditionally secure bit commitment schemes based on quantum mechanics---fully quantum, classical or quantum but with measurements---are all ruled out by this result. Since bit commitment is a useful primitive for building up more sophisticated protocols such as zero-knowledge proofs, our results cast very serious doubt on the security of quantum cryptography in the so-called ``post-cold-war'' applications. We also show that ideal quantum coin tossing is impossible because of the EPR attack. This no-go theorem for ideal quantum coin tossing may help to shed some lights on the possibility of non-ideal protocols.

Related papers

Why quantum bit commitment and ideal quantum coin tossing are impossible

Hoi‐Kwong Lo, H. F. Chau

There had been well known claims of ``provably unbreakable'' quantum protocols for bit commitment and coin tossing. However, we, and independently Mayers, showed that all proposed quantum bit commitment (and therefore coin tossing) schemes are, in principle, insecure because the sender, Alice, can always cheat successfully by using an EPR-type of attack and delaying her measurements. One might wonder if secure quantum bit commitment and coin tossing protocols exist at all. Here we prove that an EPR-type of attack by Alice will, in principle, break {\em any} realistic quantum bit commitment and {\em ideal} coin tossing scheme. Therefore, provided that Alice has a quantum computer and is capable of storing quantum signals for an arbitrary length of time, all those schemes are insecure. Since bit commitment and coin tossing are useful primitives for building up more sophisticated protocols such as zero-knowledge proofs, our results cast very serious doubt on the security of quantum cryptography in the so-called ``post-cold-war'' applications.

arXiv:quant-ph/9605026•May 16, 1996•7 citations

Is Quantum Bit Commitment Really Possible?

Hoi‐Kwong Lo, H. F. Chau

We show that all proposed quantum bit commitment schemes are insecure because the sender, Alice, can almost always cheat successfully by using an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen--type of attack and delaying her measurement until she opens her commitment.

arXiv:quant-ph/9603004•Physical Review Letters•Apr 28, 1997•603 citations

Quantum Bit Commitment can be Unconditionally Secure

Chi-Yee Cheung

It is generally believed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment (QBC) is proven impossible by a "no-go theorem". We point out that the theorem only establishes the existence of a cheating unitary transformation in any QBC scheme secure against the receiver, but this fact alone is not sufficient to rule out unconditionally secure QBC as a matter of principle, because there exists no proof that the cheating unitary transformation must be known to the cheater in all possible cases. In this work, we show how to circumvent the "no-go theorem" and prove that unconditionally secure QBC is in fact possible.

arXiv:quant-ph/0112120•Dec 20, 2001•2 citations

The quantum bit commitment: a finite open system approach for a complete classification of protocols

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

Mayers, Lo and Chau argued that all quantum bit commitment protocols are insecure, because there is no way to prevent an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) cheating attack. However, Yuen presented some protocols which challenged the previous impossibility argument. Up to now, it is still debated whether there exist or not unconditionally secure protocols. In this paper the above controversy is addressed. For such purpose, a complete classification of all possible bit commitment protocols is given, including all possible cheating attacks. Focusing on the simplest class of protocols (non-aborting and with complete and perfect verification), it is shown how naturally a game-theoretical situation arises. For these protocols, bounds for the cheating probabilities are derived, involving the two quantum operations encoding the bit values and their respective alternate Kraus decompositions. Such bounds are different from those given in the impossibility proof. The whole classification and analysis has been carried out using a "finite open system" approach. The discrepancy with the impossibility proof is explained on the basis of the implicit adoption of a "closed system approach"--equivalent to modeling the commitment as performed by two fixed machines interacting unitarily in a overall "closed system"--according to which it is possible to assume as "openly known" both the initial state and the probability distributions for all secret parameters, which can be then "purified". This approach is also motivated by existence of unitary extensions for any open system. However, it is shown that the closed system approach for the classification of commitment protocols unavoidably leads to infinite dimensions, which then invalidate the continuity argument at the basis of the impossibility proof.

arXiv:quant-ph/0209149•Sep 26, 2002•1 citation

Unconditionally Secure Quantum Bit Commitment is Simply Possible

Arindam Mitra

It has been claimed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible. This claim has been widely accepted and is commonly referred to as the no-go theorem. The no-go theorem implicitly raises the question of whether quantum mechanics can be collectively verified with unconditional security against cheating. We demonstrate that by following an alternative quantum encoding scheme, unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment can, in fact, be achieved.

arXiv:physics/0007089•Jul 28, 2000•1 citation

An Information-Theoretic Perspective on the Quantum Bit Commitment Impossibility Theorem

Marius Nagy, Naya Nagy

This paper proposes a different approach to pinpoint the causes for which an unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment protocol cannot be realized, beyond the technical details on which the proof of Mayers' no-go theorem is constructed. We have adopted the tools of quantum entropy analysis to investigate the conditions under which the security properties of quantum bit commitment can be circumvented. Our study has revealed that cheating the binding property requires the quantum system acting as the safe to harbor the same amount of uncertainty with respect to both observers (Alice and Bob) as well as the use of entanglement. Our analysis also suggests that the ability to cheat one of the two fundamental properties of bit commitment by any of the two participants depends on how much information is leaked from one side of the system to the other and how much remains hidden from the other participant.

Entropy•Mar 13, 2018•7 citations
There had been well known claims of unconditionally secure quantum protocols for bit commitment. However, we, and independently Mayers, showed that all proposed quantum bit commitment schemes are, in principle, insecure because the sender, Alice, can almost always cheat successfully by using an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) type of attack and delaying her measurements. One might wonder if secure quantum bit commitment protocols exist at all. We answer this question by showing that the same type of attack by Alice will, in principle, break any bit commitment scheme. The cheating strategy generally requires a quantum computer. We emphasize the generality of this no-go theorem'': Unconditionally secure bit commitment schemes based on quantum mechanics---fully quantum, classical or quantum but with measurements---are all ruled out by this result. Since bit commitment is a useful primitive for building up more sophisticated protocols such as zero-knowledge proofs, our results cast very serious doubt on the security of quantum cryptography in the so-called post-cold-war'' applications. We also show that ideal quantum coin tossing is impossible because of the EPR attack. This no-go theorem for ideal quantum coin tossing may help to shed some lights on the possibility of non-ideal protocols.
There had been well known claims of ``provably unbreakable'' quantum protocols for bit commitment and coin tossing. However, we, and independently Mayers, showed that all proposed quantum bit commitment (and therefore coin tossing) schemes are, in principle, insecure because the sender, Alice, can always cheat successfully by using an EPR-type of attack and delaying her measurements. One might wonder if secure quantum bit commitment and coin tossing protocols exist at all. Here we prove that an EPR-type of attack by Alice will, in principle, break {\em any} realistic quantum bit commitment and {\em ideal} coin tossing scheme. Therefore, provided that Alice has a quantum computer and is capable of storing quantum signals for an arbitrary length of time, all those schemes are insecure. Since bit commitment and coin tossing are useful primitives for building up more sophisticated protocols such as zero-knowledge proofs, our results cast very serious doubt on the security of quantum cryptography in the so-called ``post-cold-war'' applications.
It is generally believed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment (QBC) is proven impossible by a "no-go theorem". We point out that the theorem only establishes the existence of a cheating unitary transformation in any QBC scheme secure against the receiver, but this fact alone is not sufficient to rule out unconditionally secure QBC as a matter of principle, because there exists no proof that the cheating unitary transformation must be known to the cheater in all possible cases. In this work, we show how to circumvent the "no-go theorem" and prove that unconditionally secure QBC is in fact possible.
Mayers, Lo and Chau argued that all quantum bit commitment protocols are insecure, because there is no way to prevent an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) cheating attack. However, Yuen presented some protocols which challenged the previous impossibility argument. Up to now, it is still debated whether there exist or not unconditionally secure protocols. In this paper the above controversy is addressed. For such purpose, a complete classification of all possible bit commitment protocols is given, including all possible cheating attacks. Focusing on the simplest class of protocols (non-aborting and with complete and perfect verification), it is shown how naturally a game-theoretical situation arises. For these protocols, bounds for the cheating probabilities are derived, involving the two quantum operations encoding the bit values and their respective alternate Kraus decompositions. Such bounds are different from those given in the impossibility proof. The whole classification and analysis has been carried out using a "finite open system" approach. The discrepancy with the impossibility proof is explained on the basis of the implicit adoption of a "closed system approach"--equivalent to modeling the commitment as performed by two fixed machines interacting unitarily in a overall "closed system"--according to which it is possible to assume as "openly known" both the initial state and the probability distributions for all secret parameters, which can be then "purified". This approach is also motivated by existence of unitary extensions for any open system. However, it is shown that the closed system approach for the classification of commitment protocols unavoidably leads to infinite dimensions, which then invalidate the continuity argument at the basis of the impossibility proof.
This paper proposes a different approach to pinpoint the causes for which an unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment protocol cannot be realized, beyond the technical details on which the proof of Mayers' no-go theorem is constructed. We have adopted the tools of quantum entropy analysis to investigate the conditions under which the security properties of quantum bit commitment can be circumvented. Our study has revealed that cheating the binding property requires the quantum system acting as the safe to harbor the same amount of uncertainty with respect to both observers (Alice and Bob) as well as the use of entanglement. Our analysis also suggests that the ability to cheat one of the two fundamental properties of bit commitment by any of the two participants depends on how much information is leaked from one side of the system to the other and how much remains hidden from the other participant.