Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userModeling Coordinated vs. P2P Mining: An Analysis of Inefficiency and Inequality in Proof-of-Work Blockchains
437
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Mohamed Alzayat
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We study efficiency in a proof-of-work blockchain with non-zero latencies, focusing in particular on the (inequality in) individual miners efficiencies. Prior work attributed differences in miners efficiencies mostly to attacks, but we pursue a different question: Can inequality in miners efficiencies be explained by delays, even when all miners are honest? Traditionally, such efficiency-related questions were tackled only at the level of the overall system, and in a peer-to-peer (P2P) setting where miners directly connect to one another. Despite it being common today for miners to pool compute capacities in a mining pool managed by a centralized coordinator, efficiency in such a coordinated setting has barely been studied. In this paper, we propose a simple model of a proof-of-work blockchain with latencies for both the P2P and the coordinated settings. We derive a closed-form expression for the efficiency in the coordinated setting with an arbitrary number of miners and arbitrary latencies, both for the overall system and for each individual miner. We leverage this result to show that inequalities arise from variability in the delays, but that if all miners are equidistant from the coordinator, they have equal efficiency irrespective of their compute capacities. We then prove that, under a natural consistency condition, the overall system efficiency in the P2P setting is higher than that in the coordinated setting. Finally, we perform a simulation-based study to demonstrate that even in the P2P setting delays between miners introduce inequalities, and that there is a more complex interplay between delays and compute capacities.
rate research
Read More
Designing an efficient difficulty control algorithm is an essential problem in Proof-of-Work (PoW) based blockchains because the network hash rate is randomly changing. This paper proposes a general difficulty control algorithm and provides insights for difficulty adjustment rules for PoW based blockchains. The proposed algorithm consists a two-layer neural network. It has low memory cost, meanwhile satisfying the fast-updating and low volatility requirements for difficulty adjustment. Real data from Ethereum are used in the simulations to prove that the proposed algorithm has better performance for the control of the block difficulty.
The blockchain data structure maintained via the longest-chain rule---popularized by Bitcoin---is a powerful algorithmic tool for consensus algorithms. Such algorithms achieve consistency for blocks in the chain as a function of their depth from the end of the chain. While the analysis of Bitcoin guarantees consistency with error $2^{-k}$ for blocks of depth $O(k)$, the state-of-the-art of proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchains suffers from a quadratic dependence on $k$: these protocols, exemplified by Ouroboros (Crypto 2017), Ouroboros Praos (Eurocrypt 2018) and Sleepy Consensus (Asiacrypt 2017), can only establish that depth $Theta(k^2)$ is sufficient. Whether this quadratic gap is an intrinsic limitation of PoS---due to issues such as the nothing-at-stake problem---has been an urgent open question, as deployed PoS blockchains further rely on consistency for protocol correctness. We give an axiomatic theory of blockchain dynamics that permits rigorous reasoning about the longest-chain rule and achieve, in broad generality, $Theta(k)$ dependence on depth in order to achieve consistency error $2^{-k}$. In particular, for the first time, we show that PoS protocols can match proof-of-work protocols for linear consistency. We analyze the associated stochastic process, give a recursive relation for the critical functionals of this process, and derive tail bounds in both i.i.d. and martingale settings via associated generating functions.
An important feature of Proof-of-Work (PoW) blockchains is full dynamic availability, allowing miners to go online and offline while requiring only 50% of the online miners to be honest. Existing Proof-of-stake (PoS), Proof-of-Space and related protocols are able to achieve this property only partially, either putting the additional assumption that adversary nodes to be online from the beginning and no new adversary nodes come online afterwards, or use additional trust assumptions for newly joining nodes.We propose a new PoS protocol PoSAT which can provably achieve dynamic availability fully without any additional assumptions. The protocol is based on the longest chain and uses a Verifiable Delay Function for the block proposal lottery to provide an arrow of time. The security analysis of the protocol draws on the recently proposed technique of Nakamoto blocks as well as the theory of branching random walks. An additional feature of PoSAT is the complete unpredictability of who will get to propose a block next, even by the winner itself. This unpredictability is at the same level of PoW protocols, and is stronger than that of existing PoS protocols using Verifiable Random Functions.
A blockchain is a database of sequential events that is maintained by a distributed group of nodes. A key consensus problem in blockchains is that of determining the next block (data element) in the sequence. Many blockchains address this by electing a new node to propose each new block. The new block is (typically) appended to the tip of the proposers local blockchain, and subsequently broadcast to the rest of the network. Without network delay (or adversarial behavior), this procedure would give a perfect chain, since each proposer would have the same view of the blockchain. A major challenge in practice is forking. Due to network delays, a proposer may not yet have the most recent block, and may, therefore, create a side chain that branches from the middle of the main chain. Forking reduces throughput, since only one a single main chain can survive, and all other blocks are discarded. We propose a new P2P protocol for blockchains called Barracuda, in which each proposer, prior to proposing a block, polls $ell$ other nodes for their local blocktree information. Under a stochastic network model, we prove that this lightweight primitive improves throughput as if the entire network were a factor of $ell$ faster. We provide guidelines on how to implement Barracuda in practice, guaranteeing robustness against several real-world factors.
Half a decade after Bitcoin became the first widely used cryptocurrency, blockchains are receiving considerable interest from industry and the research community. Modern blockchains feature services such as name registration and smart contracts. Some employ new forms of consensus, such as proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work. However, these blockchains are so far relatively poorly investigated, despite the fact that they move considerable assets. In this paper, we explore three representative, modern blockchains---Ethereum, Namecoin, and Peercoin. Our focus is on the features that set them apart from the pure currency use case of Bitcoin. We investigate the blockchains activity in terms of transactions and usage patterns, identifying some curiosities in the process. For Ethereum, we are mostly interested in the smart contract functionality it offers. We also carry out a brief analysis of issues that are introduced by negligent design of smart contracts. In the case of Namecoin, our focus is how the name registration is used and has developed over time. For Peercoin, we are interested in the use of proof-of-stake, as this consensus algorithm is poorly understood yet used to move considerable value. Finally, we relate the above to the fundamental characteristics of the underlying peer-to-peer networks. We present a crawler for Ethereum and give statistics on the network size. For Peercoin and Namecoin, we identify the relatively small size of the networks and the weak bootstrapping process.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
