Collapse binding and collapsing were proposed by Unruh (Eurocrypt ‘16) as post-quantum strengthenings of computational binding and collision resistance, respectively. These notions have been very successful in facilitating the “lifting” of classical security proofs to the quantum setting. A basic and natural question remains unanswered, however: are they the weakest notions that suffice for such lifting?
In this work we answer this question in the affirmative by giving a classical commit-and-open protocol which is post-quantum secure if and only if the commitment scheme (resp. hash function) used is collapse binding (resp. collapsing). We also generalise the definition of collapse binding to mph{quantum commitment schemes}, and prove that the equivalence carries over even when the sender in the commit-and-open protocol above communicates quantum information.
This establishes that a variety of “weak” binding notions (sum binding, CDMS binding and unequivocality) are in fact equivalent to collapse binding, both for post-quantum and quantum commitments.
Finally, we establish a “win-win” result, showing that a post-quantum computationally binding commitment scheme that is not collapse binding can be used to build an equivocal commitment scheme (which can, in turn, be used to build one-shot signatures and other useful quantum primitives). This strengthens a result due to Zhandry (Eurocrypt ‘19) showing that the same object yields quantum lightning.