### Table 1. Cost of the signature generation phase in the blind threshold signature scheme and that in the underlying blind signature scheme.

"... In PAGE 14: ... We will use as a measure the number of modular exponentiations and that of modular inverses required by a single player during execution of our signature generation protocol. Table1 shows a comparison between the blind threshold signature scheme and its underlying blind signature scheme. In this table, Scheme 1 denotes the blind threshold signature scheme described in Section 4, and Scheme 1* denotes its corresponding underlying blind signature scheme.... ..."

### Table 1: Cost of the signature generation in the blind threshold signature scheme and that in the underlying blind signature scheme. The requester

2002

"... In PAGE 18: ... which contains + 1 modular multiplications and ? 1 modular additions. Table1 il- lustrates the comparison of the blind threshold signature scheme and its underlying blind signature scheme. In this table, Scheme 1 denotes the blind threshold signature scheme and Scheme 1 denotes its corresponding underlying blind signature scheme.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1: Cost of the signature generation phase in the blind threshold signature scheme and that in the underlying blind signature scheme. The requester

"... In PAGE 7: ... We use as a measure the number of modular exponentiations and that of modular inverses required by a sin- gle player during the execution of our signature generation protocol. Table1 illustrates the com- parison of blind threshold signature scheme and its underlying blind signature scheme. In this ta- ble, Scheme 1 denotes the blind threshold signa- ture scheme in Section 4 and Scheme 1 denotes its corresponding underlying blind signature scheme.... ..."

### Table 1 Summaries for the partially blind signature schemes

2003

### Table 6.2. Table 6.2: Average time used for thresholding. Time Used OT Based with Network 84.70 seconds OT Based without Network 83.73 seconds

2007

### Table 1: Cost of the signature generation phase in the fair blind threshold signature scheme and that in the underlying fair blind signature scheme. The requester

1997

"... In PAGE 17: ...ignature scheme in Section 3.3.1 and Scheme 1 denote the corresponding underlying blind signature scheme. Table1 illustrates the comparison of the fair blind threshold signature scheme and the underlying fair blind signature scheme. Comparative to the underlying... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1: Comparison of present work to previous blind signatures

2005

"... In PAGE 4: ... Note that the resulting signature from the signing protocol is about half the size of an RSA based Chaum blind signature. Table1 compares the round complexity of our construction in comparison to previous blind signature schemes. The construction is proven to satisfy the two properties of [JLO97] model as follows: the blindness property is ensured under the Decisional Composite Residuosity assumption of [Pai99] and the Decision Linear Diffie-Hellman assumption of [BBS04].... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 4: Meta-ElGamal blind signature schemes Note that for those schemes in which the parameter s appears in C we can apos;t get blind signature schemes for general functions f and g, because s and ~ s are not allowed as arguments in the function . Thus we can apos;t get a blind signature scheme using the basic ElGamal signature scheme.A signature scheme is called blind, if all (blinded) parameters which are known by Nancy are statistically independent from the unblinded parameters of the signature. If it can be shown that for any blinded and unblinded parameters there are unique a and b which are chosen at random

### Table 1: Variants of the Meta-Message hidden signature scheme Because the signature parameters (r; s) are not blinded, this is only a hidden signature. By a slight modi cation of the above protocol it apos;s also possible to generate a randomized hidden signature scheme [Ferg93], in which the owner can apos;t choose the message he wants to be signed on his own, but only together with the notary. This technique prevents the notary against adaptive chosen message attacks of the owner but results also in randomly signed messages.

"... In PAGE 7: .... Nancy transmits the signature (r; s) to Alice. The tuple (r; s) is a message hidden signature on the message m. It can be veri ed by the following congruence: A pB NrmC (mod p) (6) This congruence is true because of the following equation: pB NrmC sNB kmC sNB hkmC sNB+k ~ mC A (mod p): Hence the Meta-Message hidden signature scheme can be written as MMH = (Mode:Type:No:e:f:g) with Type 2 f MH I, MH II, MH III, MH IV, MH, V g and the related choices for No: Table1 gives an overview about the most e cient variants of the message hidden signature... ..."

### Table 5 E cient variants of the Meta-weak blind signature schemes

1994