FPLotto: A fair blockchain-based lottery scheme for privacy protection

Pan, Yuechen; Zhao, Yiwen; Liu, Xiaoguang; Wang, Gang; Su, Ming

doi:10.1109/blockchain55522.2022.00014

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first (and one that is more common in the literature) is having a single winning candidate chosen at each timestep (i.e., o r ∈ P for each r ∈ [ℓ]). While one can view this variant of the model as a temporal extension of single-winner elections, the multiwinner interpretation is justified, too, as one can treat the (multi-)set O = {o r : r ∈ [ℓ]} as the winning committee and apply fairness concepts that originate in multiwinner voting literature to the entire set O; e.g., Bulteau et al (2021) and Page, Shapiro, and Talmon (2022) reason about justified representation provided by O. This model is considered in numerous existing works, including scheduling problems (Elkind, Kraiczy, and Teh 2022;Patro et al 2022), perpetual voting (Lackner 2020;, and public decision-making (Conitzer, Freeman, and Shah 2017;Fain, Munagala, and Shah 2018).…”

Section: Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a somewhat different spirit, consider proof-of-stake blockchain protocols where a primary concern is the "rich gets richer effect" (Fanti et al 2019;Huang et al 2021). In such scenarios, lotteries for a single-shot interaction provide a form of fairness, as the probability of winning is proportional to the invested effort (Orda and Rottenstreich 2019;Pan et al 2022). However, such mechanisms may fail to maintain fairness over time when lotteries are held repeatedly over multiple rounds (Fanti et al 2019;Grossi 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal Fairness in Multiwinner Voting

Elkind,

Obraztsova,

Teh

2024

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiwinner voting captures a wide variety of settings, from parliamentary elections in democratic systems to product placement in online shopping platforms. There is a large body of work dealing with axiomatic characterizations, computational complexity, and algorithmic analysis of multiwinner voting rules. Although many challenges remain, significant progress has been made in showing existence of fair and representative outcomes as well as efficient algorithmic solutions for many commonly studied settings. However, much of this work focuses on single-shot elections, even though in numerous real-world settings elections are held periodically and repeatedly. Hence, it is imperative to extend the study of multiwinner voting to temporal settings. Recently, there have been several efforts to address this challenge. However, these works are difficult to compare, as they model multi-period voting in very different ways. We propose a unified framework for studying temporal fairness in this domain, drawing connections with various existing bodies of work, and consolidating them within a general framework. We also identify gaps in existing literature, outline multiple opportunities for future work, and put forward a vision for the future of multiwinner voting in temporal settings.

show abstract

Section: Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Fairness in Multiwinner Voting

Elkind,

Obraztsova,

Teh

2024

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, numerous lottery and Leader Election schemes have been developed using smart contracts. According to current literature [9,22,34,12,26,22], all existing blockchain-based lottery systems employ random number generation. This RNG is either generated through pseudo-random number generators, through an external decentralized RNG protocol, or through random oracles that utilize blockchain states as seeds.…”

Section: Blockchain-based Lottery Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Leader Election on the Blockchain. There are many LE/lottery schemes for blockchains in the literature [4]- [6], [13]- [19], [19], [20], [20]- [26]. See Section II for an overview of the techniques used in these approaches.…”

Section: Distributed Leader Election Leader Election (Le) Protocols H...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it is natural that there are many LE and lottery schemes using smart contracts. To the best of our knowledge, all existing blockchain-based lottery schemes [13]- [15], [17], [17] use RNG, either through (i) pseudo-random number generators or random oracles that use blockchain states as seeds, or (ii) an external decentralized random number generation protocol. Therefore, they all inherit the limitations of existing decentralized random number generation methods.…”

Section: Blockchain-based Lottery Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PureLottery: Fair Leader Election without Decentralized Random Number Generation

Ballweg,

Cai,

Goharshady

2023

2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leader Election (LE) is an important process in distributed systems and blockchain technology, where one of the participants is designated as the leader or coordinator. LE is a part of many distributed systems and blockchain protocols, smart contract applications, and lotteries. Traditional randomized LE methods usually involve distributed random number generation (RNG) to select the leader. These approaches can be vulnerable to manipulation, fail to ensure fairness, or require inefficient and costly procedures, e.g., verifiable delay functions (VDFs) and publicly-verifiable secret sharing (PVSS). This Bachelor's thesis in Informatics introduces a new approach to randomized LE. The key insight is that fair leader election can be achieved without relying on explicit decentralized RNG. This is based on the game-theoretic assumption that every participant prefers to be chosen as the leader and would avoid actions that decrease their chances. This game-theoretic incentive can simplify LE protocols compared to RNG. PureLottery, inspired by single-elimination knockout tournaments in sports, offers a fair, bias-resistant, and practical solution for LE in blockchain environments. The underlying principle is that only two participants play against each other in each match, making collaboration efforts to manipulate the result useless.PureLottery is also efficient with its computational resources and communication complexity, making it practical for implementation as a smart contract. The protocol provides strong game-theoretic guarantees, incentivizing honest behavior, and is robust against adversaries, ensuring that dishonest behavior does not increase their chances of election. PureLottery is designed to be highly resistant to bias, ensuring that each honest player has a minimum winning probability of at least 1/n, regardless of any potential manipulation by an adversary overseeing the remaining n − 1 participants. This means that engaging in dishonest practices does not boost an adversary's likelihood of success, even if they have influence over all participants except one.Problems similar to the leader election problem can be solved with a modified PureLottery protocol. These problems include a ranking of all participants, electing multiple leaders simultaneously, and leader aversion. The PureLottery protocol has multiple applications in different fields. It can be easily implemented in smart contract applications like lotteries. Moreover, it can be utilized in blockchain and distributed systems protocols. An open-source implementation of PureLottery is provided, dedicated to the public domain.

show abstract