A decentralized online quantum cash system, called qBitcoin, is given. We design the system which has great benefits of quantization in the following sense. Firstly, quantum teleportation technology is used for coin transaction, which prevents from the owner of the coin keeping the original coin data even after sending the coin to another. This was a main problem in a classical circuit and a blockchain was introduced to solve this issue. In qBitcoin, the double-spending problem never happens and its security is guaranteed theoretically by virtue of quantum information theory. Making a block is time consuming and the system of qBitcoin is based on a quantum chain, instead of blocks. Therefore a payment can be completed much faster than Bitcoin. Moreover we employ quantum digital signature so that it naturally inherits properties of peer-to-peer (P2P) cash system as originally proposed in Bitcoin.
The attempt to making a money system based on quantum mechanics has a long history. It is believed that Wiesner made a prototype in about 1970 (published in 1983) @cite_5 , in which quantum money that can be verified by a bank is given. In his scheme, quantum money was secure in the sense that it cannot be copied due to the no-cloning theorem, however there were several problems. For example a bank need to maintain a giant data base to store a classical information of quantum money. Aaronson proposed a quantum money scheme where public key was used to verify a banknote @cite_17 and later his scheme was developed in @cite_9 . There is a survey on trying to quantize Bitcoin @cite_21 based on a classical blockchain system and a classical digital signature protocol proposed in @cite_9 . However, all of those works rely on classical digital signature protocols and classical coin transmission system, hence computational hardness assumptions are vital to their systems. In other words, if a computer equipped with ultimate computational ability appears someday, the money systems above are in danger of collapsing, as the bank systems today face.
@cite_5 @cite_9 @cite_21 @cite_17
2162106291 2949369157 1782172301 1508636262
Forty years ago, Wiesner proposed using quantum states to create money that is physically impossible to counterfeit, something that cannot be done in the classical world. However, Wiesner's scheme required a central bank to verify the money, and the question of whether there can be unclonable quantum money that anyone can verify has remained open since. One can also ask a related question, which seems to be new: can quantum states be used as copy-protected programs, which let the user evaluate some function f, but not create more programs for f? This paper tackles both questions using the arsenal of modern computational complexity. Our main result is that there exist quantum oracles relative to which publicly-verifiable quantum money is possible, and any family of functions that cannot be efficiently learned from its input-output behavior can be quantumly copy-protected. This provides the first formal evidence that these tasks are achievable. The technical core of our result is a "Complexity-Theoretic No-Cloning Theorem," which generalizes both the standard No-Cloning Theorem and the optimality of Grover search, and might be of independent interest. Our security argument also requires explicit constructions of quantum t-designs. Moving beyond the oracle world, we also present an explicit candidate scheme for publicly-verifiable quantum money, based on random stabilizer states; as well as two explicit schemes for copy-protecting the family of point functions. We do not know how to base the security of these schemes on any existing cryptographic assumption. (Note that without an oracle, we can only hope for security under some computational assumption.) Forty years ago, Wiesner pointed out that quantum mechanics raises the striking possibility of money that cannot be counterfeited according to the laws of physics. We propose the first quantum money scheme that is (1) public-key, meaning that anyone can verify a banknote as genuine, not only the bank that printed it, and (2) cryptographically secure, under a "classical" hardness assumption that has nothing to do with quantum money. Our scheme is based on hidden subspaces, encoded as the zero-sets of random multivariate polynomials. A main technical advance is to show that the "black-box" version of our scheme, where the polynomials are replaced by classical oracles, is unconditionally secure. Previously, such a result had only been known relative to a quantum oracle (and even there, the proof was never published). Even in Wiesner's original setting -- quantum money that can only be verified by the bank -- we are able to use our techniques to patch a major security hole in Wiesner's scheme. We give the first private-key quantum money scheme that allows unlimited verifications and that remains unconditionally secure, even if the counterfeiter can interact adaptively with the bank. Our money scheme is simpler than previous public-key quantum money schemes, including a knot-based scheme of The verifier needs to perform only two tests, one in the standard basis and one in the Hadamard basis -- matching the original intuition for quantum money, based on the existence of complementary observables. Our security proofs use a new variant of Ambainis's quantum adversary method, and several other tools that might be of independent interest. Work on quantum cryptography was started by S. J. Wiesner in a paper written in about 1970, but remained unpublished until 1983 [1]. Recently, there have been lots of renewed activities in the subject. The most wellknown application of quantum cryptography is the socalled quantum key distribution (QKD) [2–4], which is useful for making communications between two users totally unintelligible to an eavesdropper. QKD takes advantage of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics: Measuring a quantum system in general disturbs it. Therefore, eavesdropping on a quantum communication channel will generally leave unavoidable disturbance in the transmitted signal which can be detected by the legitimate users. Besides QKD, other quantum cryptographic protocols [5] have also been proposed. In particular, it is generally believed [4] that quantum mechanics can protect private information while it is being used for public decision. Suppose Alice has a secret x and Bob a secret y. In a “two-party secure computation” (TPSC), Alice and Bob compute a prescribed function f(x,y) in such a way that nothing about each party’s input is disclosed to the other, except for what follows logically from one’s private input and the function’s output. An example of the TPSC is the millionaires’ problem: Two persons would like to know who is richer, but neither wishes the other to know the exact amount of money he she has. In classical cryptography, TPSC can be achieved either through trusted intermediaries or by invoking some unproven computational assumptions such as the hardness of factoring large integers. The great expectation is that quantum cryptography can get rid of those requirements and achieve the same goal using the laws of physics alone. At the heart of such optimism has been the widespread belief that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment (QBC) schemes exist [6]. Here we put such optimism into very serious doubt by showing It had been widely claimed that quantum mechanics can protect private information during public decision in, for example, the so-called two-party secure computation. If this were the case, quantum smart-cards, storing confidential information accessible only to a proper reader, could prevent fake teller machines from learning the PIN (personal identification number) from the customers' input. Although such optimism has been challenged by the recent surprising discovery of the insecurity of the so-called quantum bit commitment, the security of quantum two-party computation itself remains unaddressed. Here I answer this question directly by showing that all one-sided two-party computations (which allow only one of the two parties to learn the result) are necessarily insecure. As corollaries to my results, quantum one-way oblivious password identification and the so-called quantum one-out-of-two oblivious transfer are impossible. I also construct a class of functions that cannot be computed securely in any two-sided two-party computation. Nevertheless, quantum cryptography remains useful in key distribution and can still provide partial security in quantum money'' proposed by Wiesner.