Privacy-preserving FairSwap: Fairness and privacy interplay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fair exchange protocols are among the most important cryptographic primitives in electronic commerce. A basic fair exchange protocol requires that two parties who want to exchange their digital items either receive what they have been promised, or lose nothing. Privacy of fair exchange requires that no one else (other than the two parties) learns anything about the items. Fairness and privacy have been considered as two distinct properties of an exchange protocol. In this paper, we show that subtle ways of leaking the exchange item to the third parties affect fairness in fair exchange protocols when the item is confidential. Our focus is on Fair-Swap, a recently proposed fair exchange protocol that uses a smart contract for dispute resolution, has proven security in UC (Universal Composability) framework, and provides privacy when both parties are honest. We demonstrate, however, that FairSwap’s dispute resolution protocol leaks information to the public and this leakage provides opportunities for the dishonest parties to influence the protocol’s fairness guarantee. We then propose an efficient privacy-enhanced version of Fair-Swap, prove its security and give an implementation and performance evaluation of our proposed system. Our privacy enhancement uses circuit randomization, and we prove its security and privacy in an extension of universal composability model for non-monolithic adversaries that would be of independent interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".