Note: an obvious flaw that summing permutations might lead to

duplicate card decks. Author is considering possible solutions.

Note 2: It's possible there is a remedy. If the players can send their
individual chosen deck state to secure 3
rd
party function encrypted!"
whose purpose is to add the deck states and output an #ad$ustment key%.
&he outputted key takes the form of '2 separate numbers each
representing the final key to decrypt the actual deck state to be used.
A (ecentrali)ed *ecure +ental ,oker ,rotocol
Abstract
Decentralized poker projects seem to be arising all over the Internet, however, implementing a fast
secure method of virtual deck and card use seems to be lagging behind current advancements of
decentralized projects. This paper attempts to a propose a unique decentralized mental protocol by
approaching the problem of securely shuffling and dealing a virtual deck of cards over an insecure
peer to peer network from a new perspective. The solution takes a unique approach to solving the
problem of mental poker by using two predefined universal automated arbitration algorithms. efore a
hand begins players agree on !"# a predefined $d array of deck permutations and !%# a predefined
&oker protocol !ie rules and gameflow#. This basis for a virtual deck of cards gives players access to a
shuffled deck of satisfying randomness which inherently functions in any manner a centralized virtual
or real life deck of cards might. The solution is ultra fast, completely scalable and, impervious to any
significant malicious attacks.
Intro
-entrali)ed ,oker and .ake
Today's casinos (whether online or off-line) offer many card game variants across the globe in
exchange for a percentage or fee (generally called rake) based on the betting taking place. In exchange
for this rake asino's claim to offer a sec!re and tr!stworthy environment where players can deposit
money and "oin tables of different games offered. This sec!rity however comes with a cost as sites are
tr!sted with the d!ties of providing server e#!ipment and software$ scalable client software$ !pdates$
advertising$ c!stomer s!pport$ fra!d$ coll!sion and sec!rity management$ legal fees$ reg!latory
compliance and so on. %!rthermore$ altho!gh sites have an obligation to provide an e#!ally fair game$
they do not have an obligation to keep raked monies and profits at a reasonable level. The profit and
costs sites accr!e from a centrali&ed model leaves room for the val!e of a decentrali&ed card gaming
sol!tion that might allow the val!e s!ch profits and !nnecessary costs to stay within the economy of
the game.
+ental ,oker .e/uirements
'ental poker is a cryptographic sol!tion to sec!rely implementing a virt!al deck of cards for !se in
standard gameplay. Altho!gh solving the problem of mental poker was previo!sly tho!ght not possible$
the first proposed sol!tion seems to be formally proposed by Adi (hamir$ )on )ivest and *en+,-$ and
the c!rrent best known sol!tion the a!thor is aware of s!bmitted by (ergio .emian *erner is /'0%
('ental 0oker %ramework) A new family of practical and sec!re 'ental 0oker protocols1 +2-. (ince
the latter seems to be the most valid and c!rrent sol!tion$ and has already been implemented and tested$
we will !se it as o!r benchmark for eval!ating the sol!tion proposed in this paper. 3n page 45 of '0%
('ental 0oker %ramework) (ergio o!tlines ,6 characteristics of his proposed sol!tion in relation to
different proposed protocols. This paper seeks to f!ll-fill each and every re#!irement in o!tlined that
regard.
-ontractual Agreements
,oker ,rotocol Agreement
7efore beginning a virt!al poker hand players are to make contract!al agreements based on the
conditions of the desired game-play. 8e take the r!les and general game play protocols and
immortali&e them to a block-chain for the possible lifespan of a given game !p !ntil at least arbitration
of the winning player and their e#!ity is decided (for poker this might be a given hand). 7eca!se of
decentrali&ed smart contract+9- technologies s!ch as :there!m+6- an a!tomated program can be !sed to
arbitrate the winner of a given hand or game based on the predefined r!le set. 0layers also might agree
on iss!es s!ch as seating arrangements in this contract which might also be important for creating a
!sef!l random deck sh!ffle state.
0rder of ,ermutations
An order of perm!tations of different states of a sh!ffled deck are also agreed !pon before a virt!al
deck is implemented (there will then be n; states n n!mber of cards). The order of the different
perm!tations of the deck are arbitrary as long as they are !niversal known and agreed !pon by the
players involved in the game or hand.
1sing the 2irtual (eck
*huffling
(h!ffling a deck with the proposed protocol is vastly different to today's c!rrent mental poker
protocols. Instead of creating a virt!al deck and passing it aro!nd to players or servers$ each player
chooses a random n!mber of their choice within the range of perm!tations of deck sh!ffle states. The
sh!ffle state for the deck that players will !se for their game is the s!m of each players' random
n!mber$ where the s!mmation starts at &ero after the s!m reaches <2; (for a <2 card deck or n; %or a
deck of n cards). In other words if there were only 9 cards in a deck (9; = 4) and the first players'
random n!mber was 9 and the second player random n!mber is 6$ the c!m!lative s!m is deck sh!ffle
state , since we co!nt /9 > 61 as for states higher than 9 (6$<$4$,). The individ!al random n!mbers are
encrypted secretly by each respective player to a block-chain for verification of the initial /tr!e1
c!m!lative deck sh!ffle state.
(ealing
.ealing inherits a slightly different concept than conventional methods. (ince the c!m!lative deck
sh!ffle state is predefined (yet !nknown to each individ!al player) we can simply think of dealing in
terms of who gets which cards from which position in the deck. That is too say$ for n players the first n
cards are to be /dealt1 in order to each player in a given hand or game$ and then for a 2
nd
card each
player respectively receives cards from n > , to 2n > n. In Texas hold 'em poker where each player
only gets two cards$ the next three cards in the deck are the flop$ and then the t!rn$ and finally the river.
In order to deal a card to a player each other player in the contract reveals the card (or n!mber since its
really programmatic) in which their random n!mber points to. %or this process there is not need for
encryption and exchange of p!blic or private keys. ards can only be seen if all random card pointers
are given so a player can be s!re that no one can see ones cards witho!t their permission. omm!nity
cards work in the same fashion except all players reveal their random card markers.
+alicious and 3onest (isconnects
In typical approaches to mental poker proced!res a problem arises when an individ!al player drops o!t
of a game or hand either intentionally or accidentally. This can ca!se a problem for two reasons. %irst
if s!ch a player is !nable or !nwillingly to reveal their random card marker the other players remaining
are st!ck with an inability to reveal more individ!al or comm!nity cards. The iss!e is f!rther
compo!nded beca!se the remaining players cannot resh!ffle the deck witho!t telling each other which
cards they sho!ld hold that sho!ldn't be fo!nd back in the deck of !nrevealed cards. 8ith the proposed
sol!tion here these iss!es are seemingly resolved. ?pon finding themselves in a sit!ation where a given
players' cards need to be either killed (tossed aside) or sh!ffled back into the deck$ the remaining
players can recreate the c!rrent scenario !sing a range of deck sh!ffle states in which certain card
positions remain the same while no player is able to identify the card in that position witho!t already
knowing the previo!s c!m!lative deck sh!ffle state. In other words$ if a set of ( cards from the deck
needs to remain intact b!t a set of @ cards m!st be resh!ffled$ each individ!al player can choose a new
random sh!ffle state marker which f!ll-fills these re#!irements. This method of resh!ffling gives each
player the same cards$ revealing the same comm!nity cards to the remaining players$ while not
revealing an information to any players not already previo!sly revealed. This method allows the
disconnected players' cards to either remain in the deck or killed.
-onclusion
This paper seeks to o!tline a creative sol!tion to implementing a mental poker protocol in which peer
to peer card players can sec!rely sh!ffle and deal cards in any applicable manner that centrali&ed online
and off-line casinos offer today. (ometimes sol!tions to diffic!lt problems are hard to see beca!se of
the context in which we isolate a partic!lar iss!e we wish to solve. 3n the other hand$ often it might be
a partic!lar sol!tion that changes the way in which we isolate problems from the larger machine we
wish to implement it in. The sol!tion proposed in this paper not only seems to f!ll-fill all top standards
of todayAs centrali&ed or decentrali&ed virt!al or real deck protocols$ b!t also creates a context for
mod!lar implementation and seemingly !nbo!nded expansion of highly sec!re decentrali&ed gaming
applications and variants. There are still efficiencies to be added to this protocol$ some the a!thor
already has conceived$ the p!rpose of this paper was mostly to shed light on a different approach to
solving the mental poker problem.
.eferences
+,- Adi (hamir$ )on )ivest and *en Adleman /'ental 0oker1
httpBCCpeople.csail.mit.ed!CrivestC(hamir)ivestAdleman-'ental0oker.pdf
+2- (ergio .emian *erner /'0% ('ental 0oker %ramework) A new family of practical and sec!re
'ental 0oker protocols1 httpBCCwww.dc.!ba.arCinvCtesisClicenciat!raC2D,DClerner
+9- Eick (&abo /The Idea of (mart ontracts1 httpBCCs&abo.best.vwh.netCsmartFcontractsFidea.html
+6- Gitalik 7!terin /:there!m 8hite 0aper1 httpsBCCwww.ethere!m.orgCpdfsC:there!m8hite0aper.pdf