Direct Acyclic Graph based Ledger for Internet of Things: Performance and Security Analysis

May 27, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Yixin Li, Bin Cao, Mugen Peng, Long Zhang, Lei Zhang, Daquan Feng, Jihong Yu arXiv ID 1905.10925 Category cs.DC: Distributed Computing Citations 50 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Direct Acyclic Graph (DAG)-based ledger and the corresponding consensus algorithm has been identified as a promising technology for Internet of Things (IoT). Compared with Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) that have been widely used in blockchain, the consensus mechanism designed on DAG structure (simply called as DAG consensus) can overcome some shortcomings such as high resource consumption, high transaction fee, low transaction throughput and long confirmation delay. However, the theoretic analysis on the DAG consensus is an untapped venue to be explored. To this end, based on one of the most typical DAG consensuses, Tangle, we investigate the impact of network load on the performance and security of the DAG-based ledger. Considering unsteady network load, we first propose a Markov chain model to capture the behavior of DAG consensus process under dynamic load conditions. The key performance metrics, i.e., cumulative weight and confirmation delay are analysed based on the proposed model. Then, we leverage a stochastic model to analyse the probability of a successful double-spending attack in different network load regimes. The results can provide an insightful understanding of DAG consensus process, e.g., how the network load affects the confirmation delay and the probability of a successful attack. Meanwhile, we also demonstrate the trade-off between security level and confirmation delay, which can act as a guidance for practical deployment of DAG-based ledgers.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Distributed Computing

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted