-
Stability of P2P Networks Under Greedy Peering (Full Version)
Authors:
Lucianna Kiffer,
Rajmohan Rajaraman
Abstract:
Major cryptocurrency networks have relied on random peering choice rules for making connections in their peer-to-peer networks. Generally, these choices have good properties, particularly for open, permissionless networks. Random peering choices however do not take into account that some actors may choose to optimize who they connect to such that they are quicker to hear about information being pr…
▽ More
Major cryptocurrency networks have relied on random peering choice rules for making connections in their peer-to-peer networks. Generally, these choices have good properties, particularly for open, permissionless networks. Random peering choices however do not take into account that some actors may choose to optimize who they connect to such that they are quicker to hear about information being propagated in the network. In this paper, we explore the dynamics of such greedy strategies. We study a model in which nodes select peers with the objective of minimizing their average distance to a designated subset of nodes in the network, and consider the impact of several factors including the peer selection process, degree constraints, and the size of the designated subset. The latter is particularly interesting in the context of blockchain networks as generally only a subset of nodes are the propagation source for content.
We first analyze an idealized version of the game where each node has full knowledge of the current network and aims to select the $d$ best connections, and prove the existence of equilibria under various model assumptions. Since in reality nodes only have local knowledge based on their peers' behavior, we also study a greedy protocol which runs in rounds, with each node replacing its worst-performing edge with a new random edge. We exactly characterize stability properties of networks that evolve with this peering rule and derive regimes where stability is possible and even inevitable. We also run extensive simulations with this peering rule examining both how the network evolves and how different network parameters affect the stability properties of the network. Our findings generally show that the only stable networks that arise from greedy peering choices are low-diameter and result in disparate performance for nodes in the network.
△ Less
Submitted 22 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
The PoW Landscape in the Aftermath of The Merge
Authors:
Lucianna Kiffer,
Sophia Skorik,
Yann Vonlanthen,
Roger Wattenhofer
Abstract:
On 15th September 2022, The Merge marked the Ethereum network's transition from computation-hardness-based consensus (proof-of-work) to a committee-based consensus mechanism (proof-of-stake). As a result, all the specialized hardware and GPUs that were being used by miners ceased to be profitable in the main Ethereum network. Miners were then left with the decision of how to re-purpose their hardw…
▽ More
On 15th September 2022, The Merge marked the Ethereum network's transition from computation-hardness-based consensus (proof-of-work) to a committee-based consensus mechanism (proof-of-stake). As a result, all the specialized hardware and GPUs that were being used by miners ceased to be profitable in the main Ethereum network. Miners were then left with the decision of how to re-purpose their hardware. One such choice was to try and make a profit mining another existing PoW system. In this study, we explore this choice by analyzing the hashrate increase in the top PoW networks following the merge. Our findings reveal that the peak increase in hashrate to other PoW networks following The Merge represents an adoption of at least 41% of the hashrate that was present in Ethereum, with 12% remaining more than 5 months later. Though we measure a drastic decrease in profitability by almost an order of magnitude, the continued presence of miners halts claims that power consumption was instantly addressed by Ethereum's switch to PoS.
△ Less
Submitted 2 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Ethereum's Proposer-Builder Separation: Promises and Realities
Authors:
Lioba Heimbach,
Lucianna Kiffer,
Christof Ferreira Torres,
Roger Wattenhofer
Abstract:
With Ethereum's transition from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake in September 2022 came another paradigm shift, the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) scheme. PBS was introduced to decouple the roles of selecting and ordering transactions in a block (i.e., the builder), from those validating its contents and proposing the block to the network as the new head of the blockchain (i.e., the proposer). I…
▽ More
With Ethereum's transition from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake in September 2022 came another paradigm shift, the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) scheme. PBS was introduced to decouple the roles of selecting and ordering transactions in a block (i.e., the builder), from those validating its contents and proposing the block to the network as the new head of the blockchain (i.e., the proposer). In this landscape, proposers are the validators in the Proof-of-Stake consensus protocol, while now relying on specialized block builders for creating blocks with the highest value for the proposer. Additionally, relays act as mediators between builders and proposers. We study PBS adoption and show that the current landscape exhibits significant centralization amongst the builders and relays. Further, we explore whether PBS effectively achieves its intended objectives of enabling hobbyist validators to maximize block profitability and preventing censorship. Our findings reveal that although PBS grants validators the opportunity to access optimized and competitive blocks, it tends to stimulate censorship rather than reduce it. Additionally, we demonstrate that relays do not consistently uphold their commitments and may prove unreliable. Specifically, proposers do not always receive the complete promised value, and the censorship or filtering capabilities pledged by relays exhibit significant gaps.
△ Less
Submitted 24 September, 2023; v1 submitted 30 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Nakamoto Consensus under Bounded Processing Capacity
Authors:
Lucianna Kiffer,
Joachim Neu,
Srivatsan Sridhar,
Aviv Zohar,
David Tse
Abstract:
For Nakamoto's longest-chain consensus protocol, whose proof-of-work (PoW) and proof-of-stake (PoS) variants power major blockchains such as Bitcoin and Cardano, we revisit the classic problem of the security-performance tradeoff: Given a network of nodes with finite communication- and computation-resources, against what fraction of adversary power is Nakamoto consensus (NC) secure for a given blo…
▽ More
For Nakamoto's longest-chain consensus protocol, whose proof-of-work (PoW) and proof-of-stake (PoS) variants power major blockchains such as Bitcoin and Cardano, we revisit the classic problem of the security-performance tradeoff: Given a network of nodes with finite communication- and computation-resources, against what fraction of adversary power is Nakamoto consensus (NC) secure for a given block production rate? State-of-the-art analyses of NC fail to answer this question, because their bounded-delay model does not capture the rate limits to nodes' processing of blocks, which cause congestion when blocks are released in quick succession. We develop a new analysis technique to prove a refined security-performance tradeoff for PoW NC in a bounded-capacity model. In this model, we show that, in contrast to the classic bounded-delay model, Nakamoto's private attack is no longer the worst attack, and a new attack we call the teasing strategy, that exploits congestion, is strictly worse. In PoS, equivocating blocks can exacerbate congestion, making traditional PoS NC insecure except at very low block production rates. To counter such equivocation spamming, we present a variant of PoS NC we call Blanking NC (BlaNC), which achieves the same resilience as PoW NC.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2024; v1 submitted 16 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Strategic Latency Reduction in Blockchain Peer-to-Peer Networks
Authors:
Weizhao Tang,
Lucianna Kiffer,
Giulia Fanti,
Ari Juels
Abstract:
Most permissionless blockchain networks run on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, which offer flexibility and decentralization at the expense of performance (e.g., network latency). Historically, this tradeoff has not been a bottleneck for most blockchains. However, an emerging host of blockchain-based applications (e.g., decentralized finance) are increasingly sensitive to latency; users who can reduce…
▽ More
Most permissionless blockchain networks run on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, which offer flexibility and decentralization at the expense of performance (e.g., network latency). Historically, this tradeoff has not been a bottleneck for most blockchains. However, an emerging host of blockchain-based applications (e.g., decentralized finance) are increasingly sensitive to latency; users who can reduce their network latency relative to other users can accrue (sometimes significant) financial gains. In this work, we initiate the study of strategic latency reduction in blockchain P2P networks. We first define two classes of latency that are of interest in blockchain applications. We then show empirically that a strategic agent who controls only their local peering decisions can manipulate both types of latency, achieving 60\% of the global latency gains provided by the centralized, paid service bloXroute, or, in targeted scenarios, comparable gains. Finally, we show that our results are not due to the poor design of existing P2P networks. Under a simple network model, we theoretically prove that an adversary can always manipulate the P2P network's latency to their advantage, provided the network experiences sufficient peer churn and transaction activity.
△ Less
Submitted 11 September, 2023; v1 submitted 13 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
HaPPY-Mine: Designing a Mining Reward Function
Authors:
Lucianna Kiffer,
Rajmohan Rajaraman
Abstract:
In cryptocurrencies, the block reward is meant to serve as the incentive mechanism for miners to commit resources to create blocks and in effect secure the system. Existing systems primarily divide the reward in proportion to expended resources and follow one of two static models for total block reward: (i) a fixed reward for each block (e.g., Ethereum), or (ii) one where the block reward halves e…
▽ More
In cryptocurrencies, the block reward is meant to serve as the incentive mechanism for miners to commit resources to create blocks and in effect secure the system. Existing systems primarily divide the reward in proportion to expended resources and follow one of two static models for total block reward: (i) a fixed reward for each block (e.g., Ethereum), or (ii) one where the block reward halves every set number of blocks (e.g., the Bitcoin model of halving roughly every 4 years) but otherwise remains fixed between halvings. In recent work, a game-theoretic analysis of the static model under asymmetric miner costs showed that an equilibrium always exists and is unique. Their analysis also reveals how asymmetric costs can lead to large-scale centralization in blockchain mining, a phenomenon that has been observed in Bitcoin and Ethereum and highlighted by other studies. In this work we introduce a novel family of mining reward functions, HaPPY-Mine (HAsh-Pegged Proportional Yield), which peg the value of the reward to the hashrate of the system, decreasing the reward as the hashrate increases. HaPPY-Mine distributes rewards in proportion to expended hashrate and inherits the safety properties of the generalized proportional reward function. We study HaPPY-Mine under a heterogeneous miner cost model and show that an equilibrium always exists with a unique set of miner participants and a unique total hashrate. Significantly, we prove that a HaPPY-Mine equilibrium is more decentralized than the static model equilibrium under a set of metrics including number of mining participants and hashrate distribution. Finally, we show that any HaPPY-Mine equilibrium is also safe against collusion and sybil attacks, and explore how the market value of the currency affects the equilibrium.
△ Less
Submitted 22 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
