Simulation of double spend attack on the “Proof of Work” consensus protocol

Authors

  • Н.А. Полуяненко
  • А.А. Кузнецов

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30837/rt.2019.3.198.11

Keywords:

Blockchain, Consensus Protocol, Double Waste Attack, Simulation Modeling

Abstract

A critical analysis of the well-known analytical estimates of the probability of successful implementation of a double-spending attack on the “Proof of work” consensus protocol has been carried out. In particular, the so-called “Player ruin problem” is considered, it is shown that the basic assumptions about the probability space (the set of elementary outcomes and the likelihood of their occurrence) do not correspond to the real processes that occur when the “Proof of work” consensus is established in the blockchain system. A model of “independent players” is proposed, which eliminates the main inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The convergence of the results of theoretical calculations with the data of experiments to simulate the "race" between honest players and attackers is shown.

References

The Double Spending Problem and Cryptocurrencies. Banking & Insurance Journal. Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Accessed 24 December 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3090174

Mark Ryan. Digital Cash // School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham. Retrieved 2017-05-27. https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules06/netsec/lectures/DigitalCash.html

Varshney, Neer (2018-05-24). Why Proof-of-work isn't suitable for small cryptocurrencies // Hard Fork. Retrieved 2018-05-25. https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/05/24/proof-work-51-percent-attacks/

Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System / Satoshi Nakamoto, 2009. 9 с.

Rosenfeld M. Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending / Meni Rosenfeld, 2014. 13 с.

Carlos Pinzón, Camilo Rocha. Double-spend Attack Models with Time Advantange for Bitcoin // Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Volume 329, 9 December 2016, Pages 79-103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2016.12.006

Kaidalov D.S., Kovalchuk L.V., Nastenko A.O., Rodinko M.Yu., Shevtsov O.V., Oliynykov R.V. Comparison of block expectation time for various consensus algorithms // Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control. 2018. № 4. РР. 159- 171 DOI 10.15588/1607-3274-2018-4-15

Azzolini D., Riguzzi F., Lamma E., Bellodi E., Zese R. Modeling Bitcoin Protocols with Probabilistic Logic Programming http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2219/paper6.pdf

Kevin Liao, Jonathan Katz. Incentivizing Double-Spend Collusion in Bitcoin. 2017. https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/reupapers/katzbitcoin16.pdf

Ковальчук Л.В. Основні визначення у галузі блокчейну та детальний аналіз результатів Накамото-Розенфельда-Грунспана про імовірність атаки подвійної витрати. Звіт про НДР (проміжний). Харків : АТ ІІТ. 36 с.

Pinar Ozisik., Brian Neil Levine. An Explanation of Nakamoto's Analysis of Double-spend Attacks https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.03977.pdf

Apostolaki M. Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing Attacks on Cryptocurrencies / M. Apostolaki, A. Zohar, L. Vanbever. San Jose, CA , USA, 2017. 18 с.

Grunspan C., Pérez-Marco R. Double spend races. 2017. hal-01456773 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01456773

W. Feller. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications: Volume I, volume 3. John Wiley & Sons London-New York-Sydney-Toronto, 1968

Смирнов Н.В., Дунин-Барковский И.В. Курс теории вероятностей и математической статистики для технических приложений. Москва : Наука, 1969. 512 с.

Вентцель Е.С. Теория вероятности. Москва : Наука, 1969. 576с.

Downloads

How to Cite

Полуяненко, Н., & Кузнецов, А. (2019). Simulation of double spend attack on the “Proof of Work” consensus protocol. Radiotekhnika, 3(198), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.30837/rt.2019.3.198.11

Issue

No. 198 (2019): Radiotekhnika

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).