Paper 2026/130 Original: eprint.iacr.org/2026/130 ↗

ARES: Online-Friendly Robust Threshold ECDSA with Amortized Costs

Abstract

Threshold ECDSA has been an active research topic in recent years, driven by its wide-ranging applications, particularly in blockchain domains. In these real-world applications, robustness is a critical requirement. It ensures that a signature is successfully generated as long as $t+1$ honest parties are present, regardless of malicious behavior from others. Existing robust constructions generally fall into two categories: those based on threshold linearly homomorphic encryption (TLHE) and those leveraging the Multiplicative-to-Additive (MtA) paradigm. The TLHE-based approach (e.g., WMC24 in NDSS'24) achieves constant sending communication per party but incurs an expensive online phase. In contrast, the MtA-based approach (e.g., TX25 in S\&P'25) is online-friendly, requiring only elliptic-curve group operations during the online phase. However, it has the drawback of requiring $O(n)$ sending communication per party when $n$ parties are involved. In this work, we propose ARES, a robust threshold ECDSA scheme designed to reduce both communication and computational overhead within the online-friendly MtA framework. To improve the communication efficiency of TX25, we propose verifiable non-interactive multiplication (VNIM), a new primitive which endows standard non-interactive multiplication with public verifiability. Simultaneously, we leverage super-invertible matrices and packed secret sharing to amortize the overall costs. Specifically, when setting the packing parameter of packed secret sharing to $\ell = 1$ (i.e., without secret packing), ARES exhibits linear communication complexity while already achieving an approximately $50\%$ improvement over TX25. When configuring $\ell = t/3$ with $t \ge 12$, ARES achieves lower communication overhead than WMC24, requiring a constant $\approx 4.5\text{ KB}$ per party. Furthermore, setting $\ell = t/2$ reduces the amortized communication cost to roughly $3\text{ KB}$ per party. On the other hand, amortizing across $\ell$ signatures incurs a trade-off by increasing the required party size by $\ell$.