2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-93638-3_41
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decentralized Blacklistable Anonymous Credentials with Reputation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[51][52][53]. Yang et al [54] formally define a public append-only ledger, which we use for constructing our DAMFA system (see Figure 5).…”
Section: Public Append-only Ledgermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[51][52][53]. Yang et al [54] formally define a public append-only ledger, which we use for constructing our DAMFA system (see Figure 5).…”
Section: Public Append-only Ledgermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2020, Li et al [11] proposed a round-optimal asymmetric PAKE protocol, which could construct a new anonymous credential system. "DAC" [4] and "DBLACR" [5] are two decentralized anonymous credential systems based on blockchain. e anonymity of blockchain ensures that users' private information will not be disclosed.…”
Section: Anonymous Credential (Over Blockchain)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, blockchain-based identity management has also had limited success, such as DAC [4] and DBLACR [5]. In these systems, users obtain information credentials from an authority (e.g., government) and upload their credentials to the blockchain.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, similar to the related work [19,20,[46][47][48], in this paper, we do not claim to address all issues of digital advertising. There is an abundance of papers aiming to detect and prevent cases of client-side fraud (i.e., bot clicks, click farms, sybil attacks), which can be also used in the context of THEMIS (e.g., distributed user reputation systems [49], anomaly detection, bluff ads [50], bio-metric systems [51], client puzzles [52], etc.). We do, however, outline mechanisms that reduce the incentives for clients to cheat and to control the number of sybils that an adversary is able to run in the system.…”
Section: Threat Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%