Collusion Attack from Hubs in The Blockchain Offline Channel Network

  • Subhasis Thakur
  • John G. BreslinEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


Offline channels can improve the scalability of blockchains by reducing the number of transactions in the blockchain. Offline channels provide Path-Based fund Transfer (PBT) service which allows a pair of peers without a mutual channel to transfer fund between them using paths in the channel network. In PBTs, peers allow a 3rd party to use their channel for fund transfer in exchange for a transfer fee. There are channels in the Bitcoin Lightning network which are designed to collect such PBT transfer fees. An analysis of Bitcoin’s Lightning network revealed the existence of hubs or nodes with very high degree in the channel network. There are only 10 nodes who own more than 50% funds in the Lightning network. These nodes are designed to facilitate PBTs among peers with a low degree (number of channels) in exchange for transfer fees. The emergence of hubs in channel network created the possibility of collusion attack on the channel network where a group of hubs deliberately make few channels non-operational to prevent PBTs involving a selected set of hubs (victims of the collusion attack). In this paper, we model such collusion attack using cooperative game theory and using Banzhaf index we classify the vulnerability of the hubs from the collusion attacks. We propose a design principle of the channel network that can decrease the possibility of collusion attacks.


Offline channels Blockchain Collusion Banzhaf index 



This publication has emanated from research supported in part by a research grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on behalf of the Government of Ireland under Grant Number SFI 16/RC/3835 (VistaMilk), co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund.


  1. 1.
    Poon, J., Dryja, T.: The bitcoin lightning network: scalable off-chain instant payments.
  2. 2.
    Malavolta, G., Moreno-Sanchez, P., Kate, A., Maffei, M.: Silentwhispers: enforcing security and privacy in decentralized credit networks. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2016, 1054 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raiden Network. Accessed 1 Mar 2019
  4. 4.
    Aziz, H., Lachish, O., Paterson, M., Savani, R.: Power indices in spanning connectivity games. In: Goldberg, A.V., Zhou, Y. (eds.) Algorithmic Aspects in Information and Management, pp. 55–67. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachrach, Y., Rosenschein, J.S.: Computing the Banzhaf power index in network flow games. In: AAMAS (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moreno-Sanchez, P., Kate, A., Maffei, M., Pecina, K.: Privacy preserving payments in credit networks: enabling trust with privacy in online marketplaces. In: NDSS (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, M., Miers, I.: Bolt: anonymous payment channels for decentralized currencies. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’17, pp. 473–489. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017).
  8. 8.
    Grunspan, C., Pérez-Marco, R.: Ant routing algorithm for the lightning network. CoRR (2018). ArXiv:1807.00151
  9. 9.
    Heilman, E., Kendler, A., Zohar, A., Goldberg, S.: Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In: Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, SEC’15, USENIX Association, pp. 129–144. Berkeley, CA, USA (2015).
  10. 10.
    Castro, M., Druschel, P., Ganesh, A., Rowstron, A., Wallach, D.S.: Secure routing for structured peer-to-peer overlay networks. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 36(SI), 299–314 (2002).
  11. 11.
    Singh, A., Ngan, T.W., Druschel, P., Wallach, D.S.: Eclipse attacks on overlay networks: threats and defenses. In: 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications on Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. pp. 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nayak, K., Kumar, S., Miller, A., Shi, E.: Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In: 2016 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS P), pp. 305–320 (2016).
  13. 13.
    Bitcoin Lightning Network Graph. Accessed 1 Mar 2019
  14. 14.
    Werman, S., Zohar, A.: Avoiding deadlocks in payment channel networks. In: Garcia-Alfaro, J., Herrera-Joancomartí, J., Livraga, G., Rios, R. (eds.) Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology, pp. 175–187. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Czyzowicz, J., Kowalski, D., Markou, E., Pelc, A.: Searching for a black hole in tree networks. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems, pp. 67–80. OPODIS’04. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Czyzowicz, J., Kowalski, D.R., Markou, E., Pelc, A.: Complexity of searching for a black hole. Fundam. Inform. 71(2–3), 229–242 (2006).
  17. 17.
    Dobrev, S., Flocchini, P., Prencipe, G., Santoro, N.: Mobile search for a black hole in an anonymous ring. Algorithmica 48(1), 67–90 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations