Andrei Tonkikh
ABSTRACT
A typical blockchain protocol uses consensus to make sure that mutually mistrusting users agree on the order in which their operations on shared data are executed. However, it is known that asset transfer systems, by far the most popular application of blockchains, can be implemented without consensus. Assuming that no account can be accessed concurrently and every account belongs to a single owner, one can efficiently implement an asset transfer system in a purely asynchronous, consensus-free manner. It has also been shown that implementing asset transfer with shared accounts is impossible without consensus.
In this paper, we propose CryptoConcurrency, an asset transfer protocol that allows concurrent accesses to be processed in parallel, without involving consensus, whenever possible. More precisely, if concurrent transfer operations on a given account do not lead to overspending, i.e. can all be applied without the account balance going below zero, they proceed in parallel. Otherwise, the account's owners may have to access an external consensus object. Notably, we avoid relying on a central, universally-trusted, consensus mechanism and allow each account to use its own consensus implementation, which only the owners of this account trust. This provides greater decentralization and flexibility.
- I. Abraham, K. Nayak, L. Ren, and Z. Xiang. Good-case latency of byzantine broadcast: A complete categorization. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 331--341, 2021.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- I. Abraham, L. Ren, and Z. Xiang. Good-case and bad-case latency of unau- thenticated byzantine broadcast: A complete categorization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12454, 2021.Google Scholar
- Y. Afek, H. Attiya, D. Dolev, E. Gafni, M. Merritt, and N. Shavit. Atomic snapshots of shared memory. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 40(4):873--890, 1993.Google Scholar
- M. K. Aguilera and S. Toueg. A simple bivalency proof that t-resilient consensus requires t 1 rounds. Information Processing Letters, 71(3--4):155--158, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O. Alpos, C. Cachin, G. A. Marson, and L. Zanolini. On the synchronization power of token smart contracts. In ICDCS, pages 640--651. IEEE, 2021.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Androulaki, A. Barger, V. Bortnikov, C. Cachin, K. Christidis, A. D. Caro, D. Enyeart, C. Ferris, G. Laventman, Y. Manevich, S. Muralidharan, C. Murthy, B. Nguyen, M. Sethi, G. Singh, K. Smith, A. Sorniotti, C. Stathakopoulou, M. Vukolic, S. W. Cocco, and J. Yellick. Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference, EuroSys 2018, Porto, Portugal, April 23-26, 2018, pages 30:1--30:15, 2018.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Attiya, A. Bar-Noy, and D. Dolev. Sharing memory robustly in message-passing systems. J. ACM, 42(1):124--142, 1995.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Baudet, G. Danezis, and A. Sonnino. Fastpay: High-performance byzantine fault tolerant settlement. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pages 163--177, 2020.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Bazzi and M. Herlihy. Clairvoyant state machine replication. Information and Computation, 285:104701, 2022.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Benaloh and M. d. Mare. One-way accumulators: A decentralized alternative to digital signatures. In Workshop on the Theory and Application of of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 274--285. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
- A. Boldyreva. Threshold signatures, multisignatures and blind signatures based on the gap-diffie-hellman-group signature scheme. In International Workshop on Public Key Cryptography, pages 31--46. Springer, 2003.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Cachin, R. Guerraoui, and L. Rodrigues. Introduction to Reliable and Secure Distributed Programming. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2nd edition, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Canetti and T. Rabin. Fast asynchronous byzantine agreement with optimal resilience. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 42--51, 1993.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Catalano and D. Fiore. Vector commitments and their applications. In K. Kuro-sawa and G. Hanaoka, editors, Public-Key Cryptography - PKC 2013, pages 55--72, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Catalano, D. Fiore, and M. Messina. Zero-knowledge sets with short proofs. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 433--450. Springer, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Collins, R. Guerraoui, J. Komatovic, P. Kuznetsov, M. Monti, M. Pavlovic, Y. A. Pignolet, D. Seredinschi, A. Tonkikh, and A. Xygkis. Online payments by merely broadcasting messages. In 50th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN 2020, Valencia, Spain, June 29 - July 2, 2020, pages 26--38. IEEE, 2020.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Dolev and R. Reischuk. Bounds on information exchange for byzantine agreement. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 32(1):191--204, 1985.Google Scholar
- D. Dolev and H. R. Strong. Authenticated algorithms for byzantine agreement. SIAM Journal on Computing, 12(4):656--666, 1983.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Dutta and R. Guerraoui. The inherent price of indulgence. In Proceedings of the twenty-first annual symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 88--97, 2002.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. M. Falerio, S. K. Rajamani, K. Rajan, G. Ramalingam, and K. Vaswani. General-ized lattice agreement. In D. Kowalski and A. Panconesi, editors, ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC '12, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, July 16--18, 2012, pages 125--134. ACM, 2012.Google Scholar
- M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. JACM, 32(2):374--382, Apr. 1985.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Guerraoui, J. Komatovic, P. Kuznetsov, Y.-A. Pignolet, D.-A. Seredinschi, and A. Tonkikh. Dynamic byzantine reliable broadcast. In 24th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2020). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021.Google Scholar
- R. Guerraoui and P. Kuznetsov. Algorithms for Concurrent Systems. EPFL press, 2018.Google Scholar
- R. Guerraoui, P. Kuznetsov, M. Monti, M. Pavlovic, and D. Seredinschi. The consensus number of a cryptocurrency. In P. Robinson and F. Ellen, editors, PODC, pages 307--316, 2019.Google Scholar
- S. Gupta. A Non-Consensus Based Decentralized Financial Transaction Processing Model with Support for Efficient Auditing. Master's thesis, Arizona State University, USA, 2016.Google Scholar
- M. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 13(1):124--149, 1991.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing. Linearizability: A correctness condition for con-current objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 12(3):463--492, jul 1990.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Imbs and M. Raynal. Trading off t-resilience for efficiency in asynchronous byzantine reliable broadcast. Parallel Processing Letters, 26(04):1650017, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Kuznetsov, Y. Pignolet, P. Ponomarev, and A. Tonkikh. Permissionless and asynchronous asset transfer. In DISC 2021, volume 209 of LIPIcs, pages 28:1--28:19, 2021.Google Scholar
- P. Kuznetsov and A. Tonkikh. Asynchronous reconfiguration with byzantine failures. In H. Attiya, editor, 34th International Symposium on Distributed Computing, DISC 2020, October 12-16, 2020, Virtual Conference, volume 179 of LIPIcs, pages 27:1--27:17, 2020.Google Scholar
- P. Kuznetsov, A. Tonkikh, and Y. X. Zhang. Revisiting optimal resilience of fast byzantine consensus. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 343--353, 2021.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lamport. The Part-Time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 16(2):133--169, May 1998.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lamport. Paxos made simple. ACM SIGACT News (Distributed Computing Column) 32, 4 (Whole Number 121, December 2001), pages 51--58, 2001.Google Scholar
- L. Lamport. Fast paxos. Distributed Computing, 19:79--103, 2006.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lamport, R. Shostak, and M. Pease. The byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):382--401, 1982.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. B. Lamport. Generalized paxos, Apr. 13 2010. US Patent 7,698,465.Google Scholar
- C. Li, D. Porto, A. Clement, J. Gehrke, N. M. Preguiça, and R. Rodrigues. Making geo-replicated systems fast as possible, consistent when necessary. In C. Thekkath and A. Vahdat, editors, 10th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2012, Hollywood, CA, USA, October 8-10, 2012, pages 265--278. USENIX Association, 2012.Google Scholar
- D. Malkhi and M. Reiter. Byzantine quorum systems. Distributed computing, 11(4):203--213, 1998.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J.-P. Martin and L. Alvisi. Fast byzantine paxos. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, pages 402--411, 2004.Google Scholar
- S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, 2008.Google Scholar
- K. Ohta and T. Okamoto. Multi-signature schemes secure against active insider attacks. IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, 82(1):21--31, 1999.Google Scholar
- M. Pires, S. Ravi, and R. Rodrigues. Generalized paxos made byzantine (and less complex). Algorithms, 11(9):141, 2018.Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Shoup. Practical threshold signatures. In International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 207--220. Springer, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Sliwinski, Y. Vonlanthen, and R. Wattenhofer. Consensus on demand. In Stabi-lization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems: 24th International Symposium, SSS 2022, Clermont-Ferrand, France, November 15-17, 2022, Proceedings, pages 299--313. Springer, 2022.Google Scholar
- J. Sliwinski and R. Wattenhofer. ABC: asynchronous blockchain without consensus. CoRR, abs/1909.10926, 2019.Google Scholar
- A. Tonkikh, P. Ponomarev, P. Kuznetsov, and Y.-A. Pignolet. Cryptoconcurrency: (almost) consensusless asset transfer with shared accounts, 2023.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wikipedia. Unspent transaction output - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspent_transaction_output, 2022. [Online; accessed 12-October-2022].Google Scholar
- G. Wood. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum project yellow paper, 151(2014):1--32, 2014.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- CryptoConcurrency: (Almost) Consensusless Asset Transfer with Shared Accounts
Recommendations
The consensus number of a cryptocurrency
AbstractMany blockchain-based algorithms, such as Bitcoin, implement a decentralized asset transfer system, often referred to as a cryptocurrency. As stated in the original paper by Nakamoto, at the heart of these systems lies the problem of preventing ...
The Consensus Number of a Cryptocurrency
PODC '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed ComputingMany blockchain-based algorithms, such as Bitcoin, implement a decentralized asset transfer system, often referred to as a cryptocurrency. As stated in the original paper by Nakamoto, at the heart of these systems lies the problem of preventing double-...
An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms
AbstractSmart contract technology is reshaping conventional industry and business processes. Being embedded in blockchains, smart contracts enable the contractual terms of an agreement to be enforced automatically without the intervention of a ...
Highlights- Opportunities of smart contracts for industrial internet of things.
- Lifecycle ...
Comments