Stick a fork in it

Kiffer, Lucianna; Levin, Dave; Mislove, Alan

doi:10.1145/3152434.3152449

Cited by 43 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other works have focused on smart contract use, [33] quantified the number of smart contracts in application domains for usage pattern analysis in Bitcoin and Ethereum. [34] extend this by analyzing behavioral usage patterns by network users and clustering contracts based on code similarity.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically Analyzing Ethereum's Gas Mechanism

Yang

Murray

Rimba

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethereum's Gas mechanism attempts to set transaction fees in accordance with the computational cost of transaction execution: a cost borne by default by every node on the network to ensure correct smart contract execution. Gas encourages users to author transactions that are efficient to execute and in so doing encourages node diversity, allowing modestly resourced nodes to join and contribute to the security of the network.However, the effectiveness of this scheme relies on Gas costs being correctly aligned with observed computational costs in reality. In this work, we performed the first large scale empirical study to understand to what degree this alignment exists in practice, by collecting and analyzing Tera-bytes worth of nanosecond-precision transaction execution traces. Besides confirming potential denial-of-service vectors, our results also shed light on the role of I/O in transaction costs which remains poorly captured by the current Gas cost model. Finally, our results suggest that under the current Gas cost model, nodes with modest computational resources are disadvantaged compared to their better resourced peers, which we identify as an ongoing threat to node diversity and network decentralization.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically Analyzing Ethereum's Gas Mechanism

Yang

Murray

Rimba

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a similar way, the DAOa contract exchange for Ethereum -experienced a loss of funds after a software vulnerability allowed attackers to drain the funds from the exchange. In both cases, the pooling of resources led to the success of the exchanges but introduced a level of complexity and security that became the target of exploits (Kiffer et al 2017). When Nakamoto proposed Bitcoin as an answer to the problem of trust through decentralized horizontal encryption, he assumed that the network would supplant the need for authoritative centralized decision-making.…”

Section: Network Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As one of the Ethereum project managers was quoted as saying, 'currency alone doesn't buy you the ability to create new social structures' (Hackett 2016). As discussed below, the DAO hack symbolized a key crisis for the Ethereum strategy, providing an opportunity to break with the immutable vision of a decentralized blockchain for one that was more flexible, so the financial service industry could utilize it (Kiffer et al 2017). Thus, when the DAO was hacked in 2016, the hierarchical decision to make a hard fork to adjust the blockchain ledger exemplified key differences in social attitudes towards authority on the network.…”

Section: Altcoins As Network Contestantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, when the DAO was hacked in 2016, the hierarchical decision to make a hard fork to adjust the blockchain ledger exemplified key differences in social attitudes towards authority on the network. While some adherents maintained a commitment to the immutability of the original Ethereum blockchain, the dominant 90 per cent of the network forked created a subgroup of network users to defend and promote the authoritative decision made by the majority of Ethereum miners (Kiffer et al 2017). Recalling that Della Porta and Diani's original definition of a social movement highlighted shared belief and solidarity mobilized around contentious themes as integral to a networked social movement, in this case, the dominant group moved on, leaving original adherents to splinter away with Ethereum 'classic'.…”

Section: Altcoins As Network Contestantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crypto‐coin hierarchies: social contestation in blockchain networks

Bousfield

2019

Global Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I discuss the role of crypto‐coins (CCs) as an explicit response to the 2008 economic crisis. Drawing on networked social movement theory, I outline the tension between blockchain based currencies promoted as horizontal markets of technological innovation and the persistence of hierarchical authority within these networks. By examining the assumptions about authority and regulation that underpin the creation of CCs I argue that the cryptographic responses to the financial crisis understate the persistence of hierarchies in their claims to upset traditional monetary authority. As global networks, blockchain technology faces political challenges from regulators, hegemonic market actors and adherents devoted to particular CCs. Consequently, I draw parallels between CCs and networked social movements to argue that the emergence and proliferation of ‘altcoins’ presents a series of political challenges to the framing of CCs as disruptive technology. The innovative character of CCs relies on tacit and explicit assumptions about politics that social movement theory can help to explain. By examining the altcoins through the concepts of resource mobilization, framing and identity formation, I argue that the dynamics of offline social hierarchies persist and are magnified in the world of CCs.

show abstract

“…In Ethereum's early history, for example, an instruction executable by a smart contract was underpriced compared to the real-world computing resources required to execute it [11]. Finally, smart contracts themselves are susceptible to security failures [12] that can lead to monetary loss or prevent a particular smart contract from operating correctly [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risks from Spam Attacks on Blockchains for Intemet-of-Things Devices

Paavolainen

Elo

Nikander

2018

2018 IEEE 9th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been increased interest in the use of blockchains to control Internet of Things devices either directly, or through smart contracts. Many blockchains, such as Ethereum and Fabric, have support for smart contracts. The use of public blockchains while attractive due to their decentralization and availability, do pose challenges, such as unpredictable transaction latencies and cryptocurrency price fluctuations. Transactions in the Ethereum network, such as invokations of smart contracts used to control an IoT device, have no fairness or eventuality guarantees. In this work we describe a "spam attack" method available to parties with sufficient cryptocurrency reserves to delay a statistically significant portion of transactions submitted to the Ethereum network. This paper derives estimations on the costs and effects of such an attack, and is based on an analysis of historical transactions.

show abstract

Stick a fork in it

Cited by 43 publications

References 10 publications

Empirically Analyzing Ethereum's Gas Mechanism

Empirically Analyzing Ethereum's Gas Mechanism

Crypto‐coin hierarchies: social contestation in blockchain networks

Risks from Spam Attacks on Blockchains for Intemet-of-Things Devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About