Advertisement

Bonded Mining: Difficulty Adjustment by Miner Commitment

  • George BissiasEmail author
  • David Thibodeau
  • Brian N. Levine
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11737)

Abstract

Proof-of-work blockchains must implement a difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA) in order to maintain a consistent inter-arrival time between blocks. Conventional DAAs are essentially feedback controllers, and as such, they are inherently reactive. This approach leaves them susceptible to manipulation and often causes them to either under- or over-correct. We present Bonded Mining, a proactive DAA that works by collecting hash rate commitments secured by bond from miners. The difficulty is set directly from the commitments and the bond is used to penalize miners who deviate from their commitment. We devise a statistical test that is capable of detecting hash rate deviations by utilizing only on-blockchain data. The test is sensitive enough to detect a variety of deviations from commitments, while almost never misclassifying honest miners. We demonstrate in simulation that, under reasonable assumptions, Bonded Mining is more effective at maintaining a target block time than the Bitcoin Cash DAA, one of the newest and most dynamic DAAs currently deployed. In this preliminary work, the lowest hash rate miner our approach supports is 1% of the total and we directly consider only two types of fundamental attacks. Future work will address these limitations.

Keywords

Difficulty adjustment Protocols Cryptocurrencies 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Bitcoin Core. https://bitcoin.org
  3. 3.
    Aggarwal, V., Tan, Y.: A Structural Analysis of Bitcoin Cash’s Emergency Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (2019).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3383739
  4. 4.
    Bentov, I., Gabizon, A., Mizrahi, A.: Cryptocurrencies without proof of work. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 142–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bissias, G., Levine, B., Bobtail, N.: A proof-of-work target that minimizes blockchain mining variance. Technical Report arXiv:1709.08750, September 2017
  6. 6.
    Booth, N.: The K-1 Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm. https://github.com/kyuupichan/difficulty, (August 2017)
  7. 7.
    Buterin, V., Griffith, V.: Casper the friendly finality gadget. arXiv:abs/1710.09437, October 2017
  8. 8.
    Casella, G., Berger, R.L.: Statistical Inference. Brooks Cole, California (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decker, C., Seidel, J., Wattenhofer, R.: Bitcoin meets strong consistency. In: Proceedings Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking (ICDCN) (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Douceur, J.: The sybil attack. In: Proceedings Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), March 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duong, T., Chepurnoy, A., Fan, L., Zhou, H.-S.: TwinsCoin: a cryptocurrency via proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. In: Proc. ACM Workshop on Blockchains, Cryptocurrencies, and Contracts, pp. 1–13 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In: Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pp. 436–454 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fullmer, D., Morse, A.S.: Analysis of difficulty control in Bitcoin and proof-of-work Blockchains. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference Decision and Control (CDC), December 2018Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grunspan, C., Perez-Marco, R.: On Profitability of Selfish Mining. arXiv:abs/1805.08281, January 2019
  15. 15.
    Hanley, J.A., Lippman-Hand, A.: If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 249, 13 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harding, T.: Implement weighted-time difficulty adjustment algorithm, October 2017. https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D622
  17. 17.
    Hovland, G., Kucera, J.: Nonlinear feedback control and stability analysis of a proof-of-work blockchain. Model. Ident. Control 38(4), 157–168 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Király, T., Lomoschitz, L.: Profitability of the coin-hopping strategy, March 2018. http://web.cs.elte.hu/egres/www/qp-18-03.html
  19. 19.
    Kogias, E.K., et al.: Enhancing Bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing. In: Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 279–296 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kraft, D.: Difficulty control for blockchain-based consensus systems. Peer-to-Peer Networking Appl. 9(2), 397–413 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kwon, Y., Kim, H., Shin, J., Kim, Y.: Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin cash: coexistence or downfall of bitcoin cash? In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium Security and Privacy, May 2019Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Massey Jr., F.J.: The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 46(253), 68–78 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meshkov, D., Chepurnoy, A., Jansen, M.: Revisiting difficulty control for blockchain systems. In: Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technical, pp. 429–436 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, May 2009Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ozisik, A. P., Bissias, G., Levine, B. N.: Estimation of Miner Hash Rates and Consensus on Blockchains. Technical Report arXiv:1707.00082, July 2017
  26. 26.
    Pass, R., Shi, E.: FruitChains: a fair blockchain. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 315–324 (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rizun, P.: Subchains: a technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger 1, 38–52 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sechet, A.: Implement simple moving average over work difficulty adjustement algorithm, October 2017. https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D601
  29. 29.
    Stone, A.: The blockchain difficulty information paradox, 17 October 2017. https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/the-blockchain-difficulty-information-paradox-879b0336864f
  30. 30.
    Stone, A.: Tail Removal Block Validation, October 2017. https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/tail-removal-block-validation-ae26fb436524
  31. 31.
    Zegers, A.: Bringing Stability to Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Adjustments, August 2017. https://medium.com/@Mengerian/bringing-stability-to-bitcoin-cash-difficulty-adjustments-eae8def0efa4

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Bissias
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Thibodeau
    • 2
  • Brian N. Levine
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information and Computer Sciences, UMass AmherstAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Florida Department of CorrectionsTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations