skip to main content
research-article

Ursa: Robust Performance for Nakamoto Consensus with Self-adaptive Throughput

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 November 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

With the increasing number of users in blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, the public has raised the demand for transaction throughput, and many protocols are designed to improve the throughput following the Nakamoto consensus. Although astonishing progress has been made in the on-chain throughput improvement, high throughput makes the blockchains suffer from the increasing blockchain size, hard forks, and possible attacks. In this work, we propose a quantitative model to describe and analyze the Nakamoto consensus. We then design a robust scheme named Ursa to reduce storage requirements and to reduce the forks by automatically adjusting block size according to users’ needs.

References

  1. Maria Apostolaki, Aviv Zohar, and Laurent Vanbever. 2017. Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’17). IEEE, 375--392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bitcoin Cash 2019. BCH. Retrieved from https://www.Bitcoincash.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bitcoin Classic 2009. BTC. Retrieved from https://bitcoinclassic.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitcoin Gold 2017. BTG. Retrieved from https://Bitcoingold.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitcoin Hot 2018. BTH. Retrieved from http://www.bithot.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Miles Carlsten, Harry Kalodner, S. Matthew Weinberg, and Arvind Narayanan. 2016. On the instability of Bitcoin without the block reward. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 154--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Usman W. Chohan. 2017. The Double Spending Problem and Cryptocurrencies (December 19, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3090174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Coinmarketcap. 2013. Coinmarketcap. Retrieved from https://coinmarketcap.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kyle Croman, Christian Decker, Ittay Eyal, Adem Efe Gencer, Ari Juels, Ahmed Kosba, Andrew Miller, Prateek Saxena, Elaine Shi, Emin Gün Sirer, et al. 2016. On scaling decentralized blockchains. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 106--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer. 2013. Information propagation in the Bitcoin network. In Proceedings of the IEEE 13th International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P’13). IEEE, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer. 2015. A fast and scalable payment network with Bitcoin duplex micropayment channels. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Self-stabilizing Systems. Springer, 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Joan Antoni Donet Donet, Cristina Pérez-Sola, and Jordi Herrera-Joancomartí. 2014. The Bitcoin P2P network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 87--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ethereum. 2014. Ethereum. Retrieved from https://www.ethereum.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ittay Eyal, Adem Efe Gencer, Emin Gün Sirer, and Robbert Van Renesse. 2016. Bitcoin-NG: A scalable blockchain protocol. In Proceedings of the USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. 45--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. 2014. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. 436--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Juan Garay, Aggelos Kiayias, and Nikos Leonardos. 2015. The Bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. 9057 (2015), 281--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Arthur Gervais, Ghassan O. Karame, Karl Wüst, Vasileios Glykantzis, Hubert Ritzdorf, and Srdjan Capkun. 2016. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 3--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ethan Heilman, Alison Kendler, Aviv Zohar, and Sharon Goldberg. 2015. Eclipse attacks on Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium. 129--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. IOTA. 2018. IOTA. Retrieved from https://www.iota.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Eleftherios Kokoris Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Nicolas Gailly, Ismail Khoffi, Linus Gasser, and Bryan Ford. 2016. Enhancing Bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing. In Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security’16). 279--296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyudmila Kovalchuk, Dmytro Kaidalov, Oleksiy Shevtsov, Andrii Nastenko, Mariia Rodinko, and Roman Oliynykov. 2017. Analysis of splitting attacks on Bitcoin and GHOST consensus protocols. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS’17), Vol. 2. IEEE, 978--982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Yoad Lewenberg, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. 2015. Inclusive block chain protocols. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 528--547.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kevin Liao and Jonathan Katz. 2017. Incentivizing blockchain forks via whale transactions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 264--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Loi Luu, Viswesh Narayanan, Chaodong Zheng, Kunal Baweja, Seth Gilbert, and Prateek Saxena. 2016. A secure sharding protocol for open blockchains. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 17--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Andrew Miller, Yu Xia, Kyle Croman, Elaine Shi, and Dawn Song. 2016. The honey badger of BFT protocols. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 31--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. 2016. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In Proceedings of the IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS8P’16). IEEE, 305--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Rafael Pass, Lior Seeman, and Abhi Shelat. 2017. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 643--673.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. 2016. The Bitcoin lightning network: Scalable off-chain instant payments. Retrieved from https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. 2016. Optimal selfish mining strategies in Bitcoin. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 515--532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Bitcoindeveloper, Six Comfirm. [n.d.]. The Network has Spent About an Hour Working to Protect the Transaction Against Double Spending when the Transaction is Buried Under Six Blocks. Retrieved from https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/payment_processing.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Yonatan Sompolinsky and Aviv Zohar. 2015. Secure high-rate transaction processing in Bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 507--527.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Yonatan Sompolinsky and Aviv Zohar. 2018. PHANTOM: A Scalable BlockDAG Protocol. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2018 (2018), 104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Itay Tsabary and Ittay Eyal. 2018. The gap game. CoRR abs/1805.05288 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. VISA 2016. Retrieved from https://usa.visa.com/about-visa/visanet.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jiaping Wang and Hao Wang. 2019. Monoxide: Scale out blockchains with asynchronous consensus zones. In Proceedings of the 16th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI’19). 95--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Mahdi Zamani, Mahnush Movahedi, and Mariana Raykova. 2018. Rapidchain: Scaling blockchain via full sharding. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 931--948.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Dongli Zhou, Na Ruan, and Weijia Jia. 2019. A robust throughput scheme for Bitcoin network without block reward. In Proceedings of the IEEE 21st International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 17th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS’19). IEEE, 706--713.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Ursa: Robust Performance for Nakamoto Consensus with Self-adaptive Throughput

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
        ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 20, Issue 4
        November 2020
        391 pages
        ISSN:1533-5399
        EISSN:1557-6051
        DOI:10.1145/3427795
        • Editor:
        • Ling Liu
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 November 2020
        • Accepted: 1 July 2020
        • Revised: 1 December 2019
        • Received: 1 August 2019
        Published in toit Volume 20, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!