Re: [freehaven-dev] would you like to play a game?

[dmolnar@belegost.mit.edu]

On Mon, 15 May 2000 dmolnar@belegost.mit.edu wrote:

> 
> To Do :

	* I stated these in terms of two things from which to distinguish
	because that's the way Micali started off in 6.875. Is that
	the right way to do things, or should we start with the entire
	set of publishers or entire set of documents and "come down"?

	* Related question -- when we eventually define these for
	two things, can we then use the "hybrid arguments" used to
	prove multi-message indistinguishability to prove 
	multi-publisher and multi-publishing indistinguishability?
	(or go the other way if necessary)

	* These notions do not take into account any information the
	adversary may have "out of band" on the parties' preferences.
	The situation is similar with the definition of
indistinguishability for public-key crypto. There, we have a definition
	which _does_ take such "out of band" info into account in
	semantic security. What's more, we know that those two 
	definitions are equivalent!

	Do we need or want a sort of "semantic publishing anonymity"
	and if we do, is it equivalent to the definitions we end up
	with in terms of indistinguishability?

	* If all the equivalences and so forth go through the 
	way they do for public-key crypto, does this tell us
	anything about "general" equivalence of "semantic" and
	"indistinguishability" ways of looking at a property,
	or are we just fudging definitions to make it look like
	what we know and love?
	
	What OTHER properties exist out there which can have
	definitions formulated and proved equivalent using the
	same "flavor" of definitions? not just for anon
	publication systems, but for anything?

Thanks, 
-David