Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies 2020
DOI: 10.1145/3419614.3423265
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Defending Against Malicious Reorgs in Tezos Proof-of-Stake

Abstract: Blockchains are intended to be immutable, so an attacker who is able to delete transactions through a chain reorganization (a malicious reorg) can perform a profitable double-spend attack. We study the rate at which an attacker can execute reorgs in the Tezos Proof-of-Stake protocol. As an example, an attacker with 40% of the staking power is able to execute a 20-block malicious reorg at an average rate of once per day, and the attack probability increases super-linearly as the staking power grows beyond 40%. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The traditional fusion diagnostic device adopts a centralised data storage method with insufficient data privacy protection. Once the data is leaked, it will pose a threat to the privacy of related personnel [6,7]. The above problems are the main problems faced by the current fusion diagnostic devices, and how to solve these problems is the current urgent problem.…”
Section: Fusion Diagnostics and Their Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The traditional fusion diagnostic device adopts a centralised data storage method with insufficient data privacy protection. Once the data is leaked, it will pose a threat to the privacy of related personnel [6,7]. The above problems are the main problems faced by the current fusion diagnostic devices, and how to solve these problems is the current urgent problem.…”
Section: Fusion Diagnostics and Their Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, PoS protocols, which select participants to compose blocks based on their possession of some scarce resources, demand additional security assumptions and protection mechanisms to prevent attackers from generating conflicting histories. These assumptions, however, are often difficult to meet [4], [65], and new attack vectors emerge even when the protection mechanisms are in place [11], [30], [42], [58]. BlockDAG protocols, which replace NC's linear blockchain structure with a direct acyclic graph of blocks, either abandon the global order of transactions [78], therefore limiting the smart contract functionality, or do not specify their transaction fee distribution [2], [50], [79] or DAM [2], [5], [79], rendering a complete security analysis infeasible.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%