Document Open Access Logo

On Fairness in Committee-Based Blockchains

Authors Yackolley Amoussou-Guenou, Antonella Del Pozzo, Maria Potop-Butucaru, Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.Tokenomics.2020.4.pdf
  • Filesize: 449 kB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Yackolley Amoussou-Guenou
  • Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, List, F-91120, Palaiseau, France
  • Sorbonne Université, CNRS, LIP6, F-75005 Paris, France
Antonella Del Pozzo
  • Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, List, F-91120, Palaiseau, France
Maria Potop-Butucaru
  • Sorbonne Université, CNRS, LIP6, F-75005 Paris, France
Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni
  • Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, List, F-91120, Palaiseau, France

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ludovic Desmeuzes for his work on the numerical examples.

Cite As Get BibTex

Yackolley Amoussou-Guenou, Antonella Del Pozzo, Maria Potop-Butucaru, and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni. On Fairness in Committee-Based Blockchains. In 2nd International Conference on Blockchain Economics, Security and Protocols (Tokenomics 2020). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 82, pp. 4:1-4:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021) https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.Tokenomics.2020.4

Abstract

Committee-based blockchains are among the most popular alternatives of proof-of-work based blockchains, such as Bitcoin. They provide strong consistency (no fork) under classical assumptions, and avoid using energy-consuming mechanisms to add new blocks in the blockchain. For each block, these blockchains use a committee that executes Byzantine-fault tolerant distributed consensus to decide the next block they will add in the blockchain. Unlike Bitcoin, where there is only one creator per block, in committee-based blockchain any block is cooperatively created. In order to incentivize committee members to participate in the creation of new blocks, rewarding schemes have to be designed. In this paper, we study the fairness of rewarding in committee-based blockchains and we provide necessary and sufficient conditions on the system communication under which it is possible to have a fair reward mechanism.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computer systems organization → Dependable and fault-tolerant systems and networks
Keywords
  • Blockchain
  • Consensus
  • Committee
  • Fairness
  • Proof-of-Stake
  • Reward
  • Selection

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Marcos K Aguilera. A pleasant stroll through the land of infinitely many creatures. ACM Sigact News, 35(2):36-59, 2004. Google Scholar
  2. Yackolley Amoussou-Guenou, Antonella Del Pozzo, Maria Potop-Butucaru, and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni. Correctness of Tendermint-Core Blockchains. In OPODIS 2018, December 17-19, 2018, Hong Kong, China, pages 16:1-16:16, 2018. Google Scholar
  3. Yackolley Amoussou-Guenou, Antonella Del Pozzo, Maria Potop-Butucaru, and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni. Dissecting tendermint. In Networked Systems - 7th International Conference, NETYS 2019, Marrakech, Morocco, June 19-21, 2019, pages 166-182, 2019. Google Scholar
  4. Emmanuelle Anceaume, Antonella Del Pozzo, Romaric Ludinard, Maria Potop-Butucaru, and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni. Blockchain Abstract Data Type. In The 31st ACM on Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22-24., pages 349-358, 2019. Google Scholar
  5. E. Buchman, J. Kwon, and Z. Milosevic. The latest gossip on BFT consensus. CoRR, abs/1807.04938v1, July 2018. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.04938v1.
  6. Tushar Deepak Chandra and Sam Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. J. ACM, 43(2):225-267, 1996. Google Scholar
  7. Tyler Crain, Vincent Gramoli, Mikel Larrea, and Michel Raynal. (Leader / Randomization / Signature)-free Byzantine Consensus for Consortium Blockchains, 2017. Google Scholar
  8. Christian Decker, Jochen Seidel, and Roger Wattenhofer. Bitcoin meets strong consistency. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, Singapore, January 4-7, 2016, pages 13:1-13:10, 2016. Google Scholar
  9. Carole Delporte-Gallet, Stéphane Devismes, Hugues Fauconnier, Franck Petit, and Sam Toueg. With finite memory consensus is easier than reliable broadcast. In Principles of Distributed Systems, 12th International Conference, OPODIS 2008, Luxor, Egypt, December 15-18, 2008. Proceedings, pages 41-57, 2008. Google Scholar
  10. Cynthia Dwork, Nancy A. Lynch, and Larry J. Stockmeyer. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. J. ACM, 35(2):288-323, 1988. Google Scholar
  11. Elli Androulaki et al.. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference, EuroSys 2018, Porto, Portugal, April 23-26, 2018, pages 30:1-30:15, 2018. Google Scholar
  12. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security - 18th International Conference, FC 2014, Christ Church, Barbados, March 3-7, 2014, pages 436-454, 2014. Google Scholar
  13. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Commun. ACM, 61(7):95-102, 2018. Google Scholar
  14. Giulia C. Fanti, Leonid Kogan, Sewoong Oh, Kathleen Ruan, Pramod Viswanath, and Gerui Wang. Compounding of wealth in proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies. In Ian Goldberg and Tyler Moore, editors, Financial Cryptography and Data Security - 23rd International Conference, FC 2019, Frigate Bay, St. Kitts and Nevis, February 18-22, 2019, pages 42-61, 2019. Google Scholar
  15. M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2), April 1985. Google Scholar
  16. Nissim Francez. Fairness. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, 1986. Google Scholar
  17. J. A. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. In Proc. of the EUROCRYPT International Conference, 2015. Google Scholar
  18. Guy Golan-Gueta, Ittai Abraham, Shelly Grossman, Dahlia Malkhi, Benny Pinkas, Michael K. Reiter, Dragos-Adrian Seredinschi, Orr Tamir, and Alin Tomescu. SBFT: a scalable decentralized trust infrastructure for blockchains. CoRR, abs/1804.01626, 2018. Google Scholar
  19. Fabíola Greve, Murilo Santos de Lima, Luciana Arantes, and Pierre Sens. A time-free byzantine failure detector for dynamic networks. In 2012 Ninth European Dependable Computing Conference, Sibiu, Romania, May 8-11, 2012, pages 191-202, 2012. Google Scholar
  20. Rachid Guerraoui and Jingjing Wang. On the unfairness of blockchain. In Networked Systems - 6th International Conference, NETYS 2018, Essaouira, Morocco, May 9-11, 2018, pages 36-50, 2018. Google Scholar
  21. Önder Gürcan, Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa, and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni. On cancellation of transactions in bitcoin-like blockchains. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2018 Conferences - Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, C&TC, and ODBASE 2018, Valletta, Malta, October 22-26, 2018, pages 516-533, 2018. Google Scholar
  22. Önder Gürcan, Antonella Del Pozzo, and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni. On the bitcoin limitations to deliver fairness to users. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2017 Conferences - Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, C&TC, and ODBASE 2017, Rhodes, Greece, October 23-27, 2017, pages 589-606, 2017. Google Scholar
  23. Maurice Herlihy and Mark Moir. Enhancing accountability and trust in distributed ledgers. CoRR, abs/1606.07490, 2016. Google Scholar
  24. Dimitris Karakostas, Aggelos Kiayias, Christos Nasikas, and Dionysis Zindros. Cryptocurrency Egalitarianism: A Quantitative Approach. In International Conference on Blockchain Economics, Security and Protocols (Tokenomics 2019), Paris, France, May 06-07, 2019. Google Scholar
  25. Aggelos Kiayias, Alexander Russell, Bernardo David, and Roman Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2017 - 37th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 20-24, 2017, Proceedings, Part I, pages 357-388, 2017. Google Scholar
  26. Kim Potter Kihlstrom, Louise E. Moser, and P. M. Melliar-Smith. Byzantine fault detectors for solving consensus. Comput. J., 46(1):16-35, 2003. Google Scholar
  27. E. Kokoris-Kogias, P. Jovanovic, N. Gailly, I. Khoffi, L. Gasser, and B. Ford. Enhancing Bitcoin Security and Performance with Strong Consistency via Collective Signing. In Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Security Symposium, 2016. Google Scholar
  28. Nicolas Lagaillardie, Mohamed Aimen Djari, and Önder Gürcan. A Computational Study on Fairness of the Tendermint Blockchain Protocol. Information, 10(12):378, 2019. Google Scholar
  29. Kfir Lev-Ari, Alexander Spiegelman, Idit Keidar, and Dahlia Malkhi. Fairledger: A fair blockchain protocol for financial institutions. CoRR, abs/1906.03819, 2019. Google Scholar
  30. MATLAB. version 9.6 (R2019a). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, 2019. Google Scholar
  31. S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (visited on 2019-08-15), 2008.
  32. Dev Ojha and Christopher Goes. F1 Fee Distribution. In International Conference on Blockchain Economics, Security and Protocols (Tokenomics 2019), Paris, France, May 06-07, 2019. Google Scholar
  33. Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. The sleepy model of consensus. In ASIACRYPT 2017 - 23rd International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptology and Information Security, Hong Kong, China, December 3-7, 2017, Proceedings, Part II, pages 380-409, 2017. Google Scholar
  34. M. Pease, R. Shostak, and L. Lamport. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM, 27(2):228-234, April 1980. Google Scholar
  35. Fahad Saleh. Blockchain Without Waste: Proof-of-Stake. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3183935, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, January 2019. Google Scholar
  36. Maofan Yin, Dahlia Malkhi, Michael K. Reiter, Guy Golan-Gueta, and Ittai Abraham. Hotstuff: BFT consensus with linearity and responsiveness. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2019, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 29 - August 2, 2019., pages 347-356, 2019. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact