Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security 2018
DOI: 10.1145/3243734.3243814
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Better Method to Analyze Blockchain Consistency

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
130
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(131 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
130
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Kiffer and Rajaraman [50] provided a simple framework of Markov processes for analyzing consistency properties of the blockchain protocols, and used some numerical experiments to check the consensus bounds for network delay parameters and adversarial computing percentages. Huang et al [41] set up a Markov process with an absorbing state to analyze performance measures of the Raft consensus algorithm for a private blockchain.…”
Section: Markov Processesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kiffer and Rajaraman [50] provided a simple framework of Markov processes for analyzing consistency properties of the blockchain protocols, and used some numerical experiments to check the consensus bounds for network delay parameters and adversarial computing percentages. Huang et al [41] set up a Markov process with an absorbing state to analyze performance measures of the Raft consensus algorithm for a private blockchain.…”
Section: Markov Processesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A complicated analysis with strong assumptions [4] showed that the blockchain growth theorem, the blockchain quality theorem, and the common prefix theorem remain valid under the non-lockstep synchrony model. Reference [5] also reasoned the consistency of bitcoin protocol using the Markov chains, although their result has a non-closed form.…”
Section: A the Bitcoin Backbone Protocolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The intuition is that under typical event, an honest miner's blockchain grow by at least X[s + ∆, t − ∆] according to Lemma 17. Meanwhile, the number of adversarial blocks mined is upper bounded by (5). Thus, at least certain fraction of blocks must be honest even in the worst case that all adversarial blocks are included in the blockchain.…”
Section: Definition 13 (Typical Event)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Assuming a subchain of blocks (e.g., 6 blocks 1 ), a diet node can increase its trust in B k by ver-ifying the correctness of the subchain (B k− +1 , ..., B k ) to ensure that none of these blocks have been counterfeited. While a block is already costly to create for an attacker, a subchain of blocks is exponentially more costly to counterfeit [6]; verifying that they are all correct can exponentially increase the trust a diet node has in B k therefore drawing its trust in B k much closer to that of a full node.…”
Section: Enabling Block and Subchain Verificationmentioning
confidence: 99%