Impossibility of Full Decentralization in Permissionless Blockchains
May 13, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Yujin Kwon, Jian Liu, Minjeong Kim, Dawn Song, Yongdae Kim
arXiv ID
1905.05158
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Cross-listed
cs.GT
Citations
75
Venue
Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Bitcoin uses blockchain technology and proof-of-work (PoW) mechanism where nodes spend computing resources and earn rewards in return for spending these resources. This incentive system has caused power to be significantly biased towards a few nodes, called mining pools. In fact, poor decentralization appears not only in PoW-based coins but also in coins adopting other mechanisms such as proof-of-stake (PoS) and delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS). In this paper, we target this centralization issue. To this end, we first define (m, \varepsilon, Ξ΄)-decentralization as a state that satisfies 1) there are at least m participants running a node and 2) the ratio between the total resource power of nodes run by the richest and Ξ΄-th percentile participants is less than or equal to 1+\varepsilon. To see if it is possible to achieve good decentralization, we introduce sufficient conditions for the incentive system of a blockchain to reach (m, \varepsilon, Ξ΄)-decentralization. When satisfying the conditions, a blockchain system can reach full decentralization with probability 1. However, to achieve this, the blockchain system should be able to assign a positive Sybil cost, where the Sybil cost is defined as the difference between the cost for one participant running multiple nodes and the total cost for multiple participants each running one node. On the other hand, we prove that when there is no Sybil cost, the probability of reaching (m, \varepsilon, Ξ΄)-decentralization is upper bounded by a value close to 0, considering a large rich-poor gap. To determine the conditions that each system cannot satisfy, we also analyze protocols of all PoW, PoS, and DPoS coins in the top 100 coins according to our conditions. Finally, we conduct data analysis of these coins to validate our theory.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted