skip to main content
research-article

RTChain: A Reputation System with Transaction and Consensus Incentives for E-commerce Blockchain

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 December 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Blockchain technology, whose most successful application is Bitcoin, enables non-repudiation and non-tamperable online transactions without the participation of a trusted central party. As a global ledger, the blockchain achieves the consistency of replica stored on each node through a consensus mechanism. A well-designed consensus mechanism, on one hand, needs to be efficient to meet the high frequency of online transactions. For example, the existing electronic payment systems can handle over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS), while Bitcoin can only handle an average of about 3TPS. On the other hand, it needs to have good security and high fault tolerance; that is, in the case when some nodes are captured by adversaries, the network can still operate normally. In this article, we establish a reputation system, called RTChain, to be integrated into the e-commerce blockchain to achieve a distributed consensus and transaction incentives. The proposed scheme has the following advantages. First, an incentive mechanism is used to influence the consensus behavior of nodes and the transaction behavior of users, which in turn influence the reputation scores of both nodes and users. That is, when a node correctly processes a transaction, it will receive the corresponding reputation value as a reward, and the reputation value will be reduced as punishment not only when the node is dishonest and violates the consensus agreement but also the transaction is not completed as required. Just like electronic transactions in the real world, the higher the reputation of the user, the more likely it is to be selected as the transaction partner. A user with a low reputation will be gradually eliminated in our system because it is difficult to complete the transaction. Second, RTChain uses a verifiable random function to generate the leader in each round, which guarantees fairness for all participants and, unlike PoW, does not consume a large amount of computing resources. Then our consensus mechanism selects the nodes with high reputation scores to reduce the number of nodes participating in the consensus, thus improving the consensus efficiency, so that RTChain’s throughput can reach 4,000TPS. Third, we built a reputation chain to implement the distributed storage and management of reputation. Finally, our consensus mechanism is secure against existing attacks, such as flash attacks, selfish mining attacks, eclipse attacks, and double spending attacks, and allows nodes that participate in the consensus to fail, as long as the reputation of the failure node does not exceed one-third of the total reputation. We build a prototype of RTChain, and the experimental results show that RTChain is promising and deployable for e-commerce blockchains.

References

  1. Bitshare. [n.d.]. Delegated Proof-of-Stake Consensus. Retrieved from https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mustafa Al-Bassam, Alberto Sonnino, Shehar Bano, Dave Hrycyszyn, and George Danezis. 2018. Chainspace: A sharded smart contracts platform. In 25th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS’18). The Internet Society. Retrieved from http://wp.internetsociety.org/ndss/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2018/02/ndss2018_09-2_Al-Bassam_paper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Elli Androulaki, Artem Barger, Vita Bortnikov, Christian Cachin, Konstantinos Christidis, Angelo De Caro, David Enyeart, Christopher Ferris, Gennady Laventman, Yacov Manevich, Srinivasan Muralidharan, Chet Murthy, Binh Nguyen, Manish Sethi, Gari Singh, Keith Smith, Alessandro Sorniotti, Chrysoula Stathakopoulou, Marko Vulou, Sharon Weed Cocco, and Jason Yellick. 2018. Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference, EuroSys 2018, Porto, Portugal, April 23-26, 2018. 30:1--30:15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3190508Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Pierre-Louis Aublin, Rachid Guerraoui, Nikola Knezevic, Vivien Quéma, and Marko Vukolic. 2015. The next 700 BFT protocols. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 32, 4 (2015), 12:1--12:45. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2658994Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Juan Beccuti and Christian Jaag. 2017. The Bitcoin Mining Game: On the Optimality of Honesty in Proof-of-work Consensus Mechanism. Working Papers 0060. Swiss Economics. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chc/wpaper/0060.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Iddo Bentov, Rafael Pass, and Elaine Shi. 2016. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016 (2016), 919. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Joseph Bonneau. 2016. Why buy when you can rent? - Bribery attacks on bitcoin-style consensus. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC’16) International Workshops, BITCOIN, VOTING, and WAHC, Revised Selected Papers. 19--26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Davide Carboni. 2015. Feedback based reputation on top of the bitcoin blockchain. CoRR abs/1502.01504 (2015). arxiv:1502.01504 http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01504Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jing Chen and Silvio Micali. 2019. Algorand: A secure and efficient distributed ledger. Theor. Comput. Sci. 777 (2019),155--183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2019.02.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Nxt Community. 2014. Nxt Whitepaper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor. 1992. Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. In Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO’92), 12th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ernest F. Brickell (Ed.), Vol. 740. Springer, 139--147. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48071-4_10Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ittay Eyal, Adem Efe Gencer, Emin Gün Sirer, and Robbert Van Renesse. 2016. Bitcoin-NG: A scalable blockchain protocol. In Usenix Conference on Networked Systems Design & Implementation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. 2018. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Commun. ACM 61, 7 (2018), 95--102. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3212998Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fangyu Gai, Baosheng Wang, Wenping Deng, and Wei Peng. 2018. Proof of reputation: A reputation-based consensus protocol for peer-to-peer network. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications - 23rd International Conference (DASFAA’18), Proceedings, Part II. 666--681. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91458-9_41Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Göbel, H. P. Keeler, A. E. Krzesinski, and P. G. Taylor. 2016. Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay. Perform. Eval. 104 (2016), 23--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Guy Golan-Gueta, Ittai Abraham, Shelly Grossman, Dahlia Malkhi, Benny Pinkas, Michael K. Reiter, Dragos-Adrian Seredinschi, Orr Tamir, and Alin Tomescu. 2018. SBFT: A scalable decentralized trust infrastructure for blockchains. CoRR abs/1804.01626 (2018). arxiv:1804.01626 http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01626Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ethan Heilman, Alison Kendler, Aviv Zohar, and Sharon Goldberg. 2015. Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security’15).129--144. Retrieved from https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/heilman.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels. 1999. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols (extended abstract). In Ifip Tc6/tc11 Joint Working Conference on Secure Information Networks: Communications & Multimedia Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghassan Karame, Elli Androulaki, and Srdjan Capkun. 2012. Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin. In the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’12). 906--917. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2382196.2382292Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Aggelos Kiayias, Alexander Russell, Bernardo David, and Roman Oliynykov. 2017. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO’17) - 37th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Proceedings, Part I. 357--388. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63688-7_12Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Aggelos Kiayias, Alexander Russell, Bernardo David, Roman Oliynykov, Iddo Bentov, Charles Lee, Alex Mizrahi, et al. 2017. PPCoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS'16). 1--27. Retrieved from http://peerco.in/assets/paper/peercoin-paper.pdf%0A.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Nicolas Gailly, Ismail Khoffi, and Bryan Ford. 2016. Enhancing bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing. Appl. Math. Modell. 37, 8 (2016), 5723--5742.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Linus Gasser, Nicolas Gailly, Ewa Syta, and Bryan Ford. 2018. OmniLedger: A secure, scale-out, decentralized ledger via sharding. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’18), Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society, 583--598. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2018.000-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Leslie Lamport. 1998. The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16, 2 (1998), 133--169. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/279227.279229Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. 1982. The Byzantine Generals Problem. 382--401 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Edgar R. Weippl, Stefan Katzenbeisser, Christopher Kruegel, Andrew C. Myers, and Shai Halevi (Eds.). ACM, 17--30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978389Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Oom Temudo De Castro Miguel. 2002. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 20, 4 (2002), 398--461.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Andrew Miller, Xia Yu, Kyle Croman, Elaine Shi, and Dawn Song. 2016. The honey badger of BFT protocols. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Consulted (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. 2016. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P’’16). IEEE, 305--320. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSP.2016.32Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Diego Ongaro and John K. Ousterhout. 2014. In search of an understandable consensus algorithm. In 2014 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC’14). 305--319. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc14/technical-sessions/presentation/ongaro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Meni Rosenfeld. 2014. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. Eprint Arxiv (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. 2016. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security - 20th International Conference (FC’16), Revised Selected Papers. 515--532. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54970-4_30Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Derek Sorensen. 2019. Establishing standards for consensus on blockchains. In Blockchain (ICBC’19) - 2nd International Conference, Held as Part of the Services Conference Federation (SCF’19), Proceedings. 18--33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23404-1_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Pavel Vasin. 2017. BlackCoins Proof-of-Stake Protocol v2. https://www.blackcoin.co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Maofan Yin, Dahlia Malkhi, Michael K. Reiter, Guy Golan-Gueta, and Ittai Abraham. 2019. HotStuff: BFT consensus with linearity and responsiveness. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC’19), Peter Robinson and Faith Ellen (Eds.). ACM, 347--356. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3293611.3331591Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jiangshan Yu, David Kozhaya, Jeremie Decouchant, and Paulo Jorge Esteves Veríssimo. 2019. RepuCoin: Your reputation is your power. IEEE Trans. Comput. 68, 8 (2019), 1225--1237. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2019.2900648Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Mahdi Zamani, Mahnush Movahedi, and Mariana Raykova. 2018. RapidChain: Scaling blockchain via full sharding. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’18), David Lie, Mohammad Mannan, Michael Backes, and XiaoFeng Wang (Eds.). ACM, 931--948. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3243734.3243853Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. RTChain: A Reputation System with Transaction and Consensus Incentives for E-commerce Blockchain

        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 21, Issue 1
          Visions Paper, Regular Papers, SI: Blockchain in E-Commerce, and SI: Human-Centered Security, Privacy, and Trust in the Internet of Things
          February 2021
          534 pages
          ISSN:1533-5399
          EISSN:1557-6051
          DOI:10.1145/3441681
          • Editor:
          • Ling Liu
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 December 2020
          • Accepted: 1 October 2020
          • Revised: 1 September 2020
          • Received: 1 December 2019
          Published in toit Volume 21, Issue 1

          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!