Advertisement

A Wild Velvet Fork Appears! Inclusive Blockchain Protocol Changes in Practice

(Short Paper)
  • A. ZamyatinEmail author
  • N. Stifter
  • A. Judmayer
  • P. Schindler
  • E. Weippl
  • W. J. Knottenbelt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10958)

Abstract

The loosely defined terms hard fork and soft fork have established themselves as descriptors of different classes of upgrade mechanisms for the underlying consensus rules of (proof-of-work) blockchains. Recently, a novel approach termed velvet fork, which expands upon the concept of a soft fork, was outlined in [22]. Specifically, velvet forks intend to avoid the possibility of disagreement by a change of rules through rendering modifications to the protocol backward compatible and inclusive to legacy blocks. We present an overview and definitions of these different upgrade mechanisms and outline their relationships. Hereby, we expose examples where velvet forks or similar constructions are already actively employed in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Furthermore, we expand upon the concept of velvet forks by proposing possible applications and discuss potentially arising security implications.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Blockchain (GB) Ltd., FFG-Austrian Research Promotion Agency Bridge Early Stage 846573 A2Bit, Bridge 1 858561 SESC, and COMET K1.

References

  1. 1.
    Counterparty. https://counterparty.io/. Accessed 11 Apr 2017
  2. 2.
    Omni layer. http://www.omnilayer.org/. Accessed 11 Apr 2017
  3. 3.
    P2Pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed 10 May 2017
  4. 4.
    UASF. https://github.com/OPUASF/UASF. Accessed 11 Apr 2017
  5. 5.
    Androulaki, E., Capkun, S., Karame, G.O.: Two bitcoins at the price of one? Double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In: CCS (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bitcoin Community: Bitcoin wiki. https://bitcoin.it/. Accessed 30 June 2015
  7. 7.
    Bitcoin Wiki: Merged mining specification. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification. Accessed 10 May 2017
  8. 8.
    Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: SoK: research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buterin, V.: Hard forks, soft forks, defaults and coercion (2017). http://vitalik.ca/general/2017/03/14/forks_and_markets.html. Accessed 11 Apr 2017
  10. 10.
    Carlsten, M., Kalodner, H., Weinberg, S.M., Narayanan, A.: On the instability of bitcoin without the block reward. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 154–167. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chandra, T.D., Toueg, S.: Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. J. ACM (JACM) 43, 225–267 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duong, T., Chepurnoy, A., Fan, L., Zhou, H.-S.: TwinsCoin: a cryptocurrency via proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM Workshop on Blockchains, Cryptocurrencies, and Contracts, BCC 2018, Incheon, Republic of Korea, pp. 1–13. ACM, New York (2018). ISBN 978-1-4503-5758-6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3205230.3205233
  13. 13.
    Bitcoin Community: Bitcoin developer guide-transaction data. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#transaction-data. Accessed 11 Apr 2017
  14. 14.
    Eyal, I., Gencer, A.E., Sirer, E.G., van Renesse, R.: Bitcoin-NG: a scalable blockchain protocol. In: 13th USENIX Security Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 2016). USENIX Association, March 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In: Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R. (eds.) FC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8437, pp. 436–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45472-5_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Leonardos, N.: The bitcoin backbone protocol: analysis and applications. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 281–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gencer, A.E., van Renesse, R., Sirer, E.G.: Short paper: service-oriented sharding for blockchains. In: Kiayias, A. (ed.) FC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10322, pp. 393–401. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70972-7_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giechaskiel, I., Cremers, C., Rasmussen, K.B.: On bitcoin security in the presence of broken cryptographic primitives. In: Askoxylakis, I., Ioannidis, S., Katsikas, S., Meadows, C. (eds.) ESORICS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9879, pp. 201–222. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45741-3_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeffrey, C., Poon, J., Indutny, F., Pair, S.: Extension blocks (draft) (2017). https://github.com/tothemoon-org/extension-blocks/blob/master/spec.md. Accessed 11 Apr 2017
  20. 20.
    Judmayer, A., Zamyatin, A., Stifter, N., Voyiatzis, A.G., Weippl, E.: Merged mining: curse or cure? In: Garcia-Alfaro, J., Navarro-Arribas, G., Hartenstein, H., Herrera-Joancomartí, J. (eds.) ESORICS/DPM/CBT -2017. LNCS, vol. 10436, pp. 316–333. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67816-0_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karame, G.O., Androulaki, E., Roeschlin, M., Gervais, A., Čapkun, S.: Misbehavior in bitcoin: a study of double-spending and accountability. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. (TISSEC) 18, 2 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiayias, A., Miller, A., Zindros, D.: Non-interactive proofs of proof-of-work. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/963 (2017). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/963.pdf. Accessed 03 Oct 2017
  23. 23.
    Lau, J.: [bitcoin-dev] Extension block softfork proposal (2017). https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013490.html. Accessed 11 Apr 2017
  24. 24.
    Lombrozo, E., Lau, J., Wuille, P.: BIP141: segregated witness (consensus layer) (2012). https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki. Accessed 10 May 2017
  25. 25.
    McCorry, P., Heilman, E., Miller, A.: Atomically trading with Roger: gambling on the success of a hardfork. In: Garcia-Alfaro, J., Navarro-Arribas, G., Hartenstein, H., Herrera-Joancomartí, J. (eds.) ESORICS/DPM/CBT -2017. LNCS, vol. 10436, pp. 334–353. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67816-0_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed 01 July 2015
  27. 27.
    Pass, R., Seeman, L., Shelat, A.: Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 643–673. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56614-6_22CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pseudonymous (“TierNolan”): Decoupling transactions and POW (2013). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0. Accessed 10 May 2017
  29. 29.
    Rizun, P.R.: Subchains: a technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger 1, 38–52 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenfeld, M.: Overview of colored coins (2012). https://bitcoil.co.il/BitcoinX.pdf. Accessed 09 Mar 2016
  31. 31.
    Rosenfeld, M.: Analysis of hashrate-based double spending (2014). http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009. Accessed 09 Mar 2016
  32. 32.
    Sapirshtein, A., Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In: Grossklags, J., Preneel, B. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9603, pp. 515–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54970-4_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: Bitcoin’s security model revisited (2016). http://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.09193. Accessed 04 July 2016
  34. 34.
    Stone, A.: Bip152: compact block relay (2015). https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP/blob/master/001.mediawiki. Accessed 01 Dec 2018
  35. 35.
    Swanson, T.: Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems (2015). http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf. Accessed 03 Oct 2017
  36. 36.
    Zhang, R., Preneel, B.: On the necessity of a prescribed block validity consensus: analyzing bitcoin unlimited mining protocol. In: International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies-CoNEXT 2017. ACM (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Financial Cryptography Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Zamyatin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • N. Stifter
    • 2
  • A. Judmayer
    • 2
  • P. Schindler
    • 2
  • E. Weippl
    • 2
  • W. J. Knottenbelt
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.SBA ResearchViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations