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

arXiv:quant-ph/9808001 · Physical Review Letters

Quantum Gambling

Lior Goldenberg, Lev Vaidman A, Stephen J. Wiesner

Published Apr 19, 1999• 114 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We present a two-party protocol for ``quantum gambling,'' a new task closely related to coin tossing. The protocol allows two remote parties to play a gambling game such that in a certain limit it becomes a fair game. No unconditionally secure classical method is known to accomplish this task.
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.82.3356

Related papers

Quantum gambling based on Nash-equilibrium

Pei Zhang, Xiaoqi Zhou, Yunlong Wang +6 more

Abstract The problem of establishing a fair bet between spatially separated gambler and casino can only be solved in the classical regime by relying on a trusted third party. By combining Nash-equilibrium theory with quantum game theory, we show that a secure, remote, two-party game can be played using a quantum gambling machine which has no classical counterpart. Specifically, by modifying the Nash-equilibrium point we can construct games with arbitrary amount of bias, including a game that is demonstrably fair to both parties. We also report a proof-of-principle experimental demonstration using linear optics.

arXiv:1408.6593•npj Quantum Information•Jun 6, 2017•13 citations

An introduction to quantum coin-tossing

C. Doescher, Michael Keyl

We review the quantum version of a well known problem of cryptography called coin tossing (``flipping a coin via telephone''). It can be regarded as a game where two remote players (who distrust each other) tries to generate a uniformly distributed random bit which is common to both parties. The only resource they can use to perform this task is a classical or quantum communication channel. In this paper we provide a general overview over such coin tossing protocols, concerning in particular their security.

arXiv:quant-ph/0206088•Jun 13, 2002•3 citations

AN INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM COIN TOSSING

C. Doescher, Michael Keyl

We review the quantum version of a well known problem of cryptography called coin tossing ("flipping a coin via telephone"). It can be regarded as a game where two remote players (who distrust each other) try to generate a uniformly distributed random bit which is common to both parties. The only resource they can use to perform this task is a classical or quantum communication channel. In this paper we provide a general overview over such coin tossing protocols, concerning in particular their security.

Fluctuation and Noise Letters•Dec 1, 2002•10 citations

Unconditionally Secure Quantum Coin Tossing

Dominic Mayers, Louis Salvail, Yoshie Chiba-Kohno

In coin tossing two remote participants want to share a uniformly distributed random bit. At the least in the quantum version, each participant test whether or not the other has attempted to create a bias on this bit. It is requested that, for b = 0,1, the probability that Alice gets bit b and pass the test is smaller than 1/2 whatever she does, and similarly for Bob. If the bound 1/2 holds perfectly against any of the two participants, the task realised is called an exact coin tossing. If the bound is actually $1/2 + ξ$ where the bias $ξ$ vanishes when a security parameter m defined by the protocol increases, the task realised is a (non exact) coin tossing. It is found here that exact coin tossing is impossible. At the same time, an unconditionally secure quantum protocol that realises a (non exact) coin tossing is proposed. The protocol executes m biased quantum coin tossing procedures at the same time. It executes the first round in each of these m procedures sequentially, then the second rounds are executed, and so on until the end of the n procedures. Each procedure requires 4n particles where $n \in O(\lg m)$. The final bit x is the parity of the m random bits. The information about each of these m bits is announced a little bit at a time which implies that the principle used against bit commitment does not apply. The bias on x is smaller than $1/m$. The result is discussed in the light of the impossibility result for exact coin tossing.

arXiv:quant-ph/9904078•Apr 22, 1999•17 citations

Unconditionally Secure Quantum Coin Tossing. (arXiv:quant-ph/9904078v2 UPDATED)

Dominic Mayers, Louis Salvail, Yoshie Chiba-Kohno

In coin tossing two remote participants want to share a uniformly distributed random bit. At the least in the quantum version, each participant test whether or not the other has attempted to create a bias on this bit. It is requested that, for b = 0,1, the probability that Alice gets bit b and pass the test is smaller than 1/2 whatever she does, and similarly for Bob. If the bound 1/2 holds perfectly against any of the two participants, the task realised is called an exact coin tossing. If the bound is actually $1/2 + \xi$ where the bias $\xi$ vanishes when a security parameter m defined by the protocol increases, the task realised is a (non exact) coin tossing. It is found here that exact coin tossing is impossible. At the same time, an unconditionally secure quantum protocol that realises a (non exact) coin tossing is proposed. The protocol executes m biased quantum coin tossing procedures at the same time. It executes the first round in each of these m procedures sequentially, then the second rounds are executed, and so on until the end of the n procedures. Each procedure requires 4n particles where $n \in O(\lg m)$. The final bit x is the parity of the m random bits. The information about each of these m bits is announced a little bit at a time which implies that the principle used against bit commitment does not apply. The bias on x is smaller than $1/m$. The result is discussed in the light of the impossibility result for exact coin tossing.

•Feb 27, 2018•0 citations

Quantum gambling using mesoscopic ring qubits

Ireneusz Pakuła

Abstract Quantum Game Theory provides us with new tools for practising games and some other risk related enterprices like, for example, gambling. The two party gambling protocol presented by Goldenberg et al. is one of the simplest yet still hard to implementapplications of Quantum Game Theory. We propose potential physical realisation of the quantum gambling protocol with use of three mesoscopic ring qubits. We point out problems in implementation of such game. (© 2007 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

arXiv:quant-ph/0610037•physica status solidi (b)•May 7, 2007•5 citations
Abstract The problem of establishing a fair bet between spatially separated gambler and casino can only be solved in the classical regime by relying on a trusted third party. By combining Nash-equilibrium theory with quantum game theory, we show that a secure, remote, two-party game can be played using a quantum gambling machine which has no classical counterpart. Specifically, by modifying the Nash-equilibrium point we can construct games with arbitrary amount of bias, including a game that is demonstrably fair to both parties. We also report a proof-of-principle experimental demonstration using linear optics.
We review the quantum version of a well known problem of cryptography called coin tossing (``flipping a coin via telephone''). It can be regarded as a game where two remote players (who distrust each other) tries to generate a uniformly distributed random bit which is common to both parties. The only resource they can use to perform this task is a classical or quantum communication channel. In this paper we provide a general overview over such coin tossing protocols, concerning in particular their security.
We review the quantum version of a well known problem of cryptography called coin tossing ("flipping a coin via telephone"). It can be regarded as a game where two remote players (who distrust each other) try to generate a uniformly distributed random bit which is common to both parties. The only resource they can use to perform this task is a classical or quantum communication channel. In this paper we provide a general overview over such coin tossing protocols, concerning in particular their security.
In coin tossing two remote participants want to share a uniformly distributed random bit. At the least in the quantum version, each participant test whether or not the other has attempted to create a bias on this bit. It is requested that, for b = 0,1, the probability that Alice gets bit b and pass the test is smaller than 1/2 whatever she does, and similarly for Bob. If the bound 1/2 holds perfectly against any of the two participants, the task realised is called an exact coin tossing. If the bound is actually 1/2+ξ1/2 + ξ1/2+ξ where the bias ξξξ vanishes when a security parameter m defined by the protocol increases, the task realised is a (non exact) coin tossing. It is found here that exact coin tossing is impossible. At the same time, an unconditionally secure quantum protocol that realises a (non exact) coin tossing is proposed. The protocol executes m biased quantum coin tossing procedures at the same time. It executes the first round in each of these m procedures sequentially, then the second rounds are executed, and so on until the end of the n procedures. Each procedure requires 4n particles where n∈O(lg⁡m)n \in O(\lg m)n∈O(lgm). The final bit x is the parity of the m random bits. The information about each of these m bits is announced a little bit at a time which implies that the principle used against bit commitment does not apply. The bias on x is smaller than 1/m1/m1/m. The result is discussed in the light of the impossibility result for exact coin tossing.
In coin tossing two remote participants want to share a uniformly distributed random bit. At the least in the quantum version, each participant test whether or not the other has attempted to create a bias on this bit. It is requested that, for b = 0,1, the probability that Alice gets bit b and pass the test is smaller than 1/2 whatever she does, and similarly for Bob. If the bound 1/2 holds perfectly against any of the two participants, the task realised is called an exact coin tossing. If the bound is actually 1/2+ξ1/2 + \xi1/2+ξ where the bias ξ\xiξ vanishes when a security parameter m defined by the protocol increases, the task realised is a (non exact) coin tossing. It is found here that exact coin tossing is impossible. At the same time, an unconditionally secure quantum protocol that realises a (non exact) coin tossing is proposed. The protocol executes m biased quantum coin tossing procedures at the same time. It executes the first round in each of these m procedures sequentially, then the second rounds are executed, and so on until the end of the n procedures. Each procedure requires 4n particles where n∈O(lg⁡m)n \in O(\lg m)n∈O(lgm). The final bit x is the parity of the m random bits. The information about each of these m bits is announced a little bit at a time which implies that the principle used against bit commitment does not apply. The bias on x is smaller than 1/m1/m1/m. The result is discussed in the light of the impossibility result for exact coin tossing.
Abstract Quantum Game Theory provides us with new tools for practising games and some other risk related enterprices like, for example, gambling. The two party gambling protocol presented by Goldenberg et al. is one of the simplest yet still hard to implementapplications of Quantum Game Theory. We propose potential physical realisation of the quantum gambling protocol with use of three mesoscopic ring qubits. We point out problems in implementation of such game. (© 2007 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)