Multi-party Virtual State Channels

  • Stefan DziembowskiEmail author
  • Lisa Eckey
  • Sebastian Faust
  • Julia Hesse
  • Kristina Hostáková
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11476)


Smart contracts are self-executing agreements written in program code and are envisioned to be one of the main applications of blockchain technology. While they are supported by prominent cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum, their further adoption is hindered by fundamental scalability challenges. For instance, in Ethereum contract execution suffers from a latency of more than 15 s, and the total number of contracts that can be executed per second is very limited. State channel networks are one of the core primitives aiming to address these challenges. They form a second layer over the slow and expensive blockchain, thereby enabling instantaneous contract processing at negligible costs.

In this work we present the first complete description of a state channel network that exhibits the following key features. First, it supports virtual multi-party state channels, i.e. state channels that can be created and closed without blockchain interaction and that allow contracts with any number of parties. Second, the worst case time complexity of our protocol is constant for arbitrary complex channels. This is in contrast to the existing virtual state channel construction that has worst case time complexity linear in the number of involved parties. In addition to our new construction, we provide a comprehensive model for the modular design and security analysis of our construction.



This work was partly supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) Emmy Noether Program FA 1320/1-1, the DFG CRC 1119 CROSSING (project S7), the Ethereum Foundation grant Off-chain labs: formal models, constructions and proofs, the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) grant TEAM/2016-1/4, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) iBlockchain project, by the Hessen State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts (HMWK) and the BMBF within CRISP, and by the Polish National Science Centre (NCN) grant 2014/13/B/ST6/03540, Polish NCBiR Prokrym project.


  1. 1.
    Allison, I.: Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin explains how state channels address privacy and scalability (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bitcoin Wiki: Payment Channels (2018).
  3. 3.
    Canetti, R.: Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In: 42nd FOCS (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canetti, R., Dodis, Y., Pass, R., Walfish, S.: Universally composable security with global setup. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 61–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Celer Network (2018).
  6. 6.
    Close, T.: Nitro protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/219 (2019).
  7. 7.
    Counterfactual (2018).
  8. 8.
    Decker, C., Wattenhofer, R.: A fast and scalable payment network with bitcoin duplex micropayment channels. In: Pelc, A., Schwarzmann, A.A. (eds.) SSS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9212, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dolev, D., Strong, H.R.: Authenticated algorithms for Byzantine agreement. SIAM J. Comput. 12(4), 656–666 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dziembowski, S., et al.: General state channel networks. In: ACM CCS 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dziembowski, S., et al.: Multi-party virtual state channels. Cryptology ePrint Archive (2019).
  12. 12.
    Dziembowski, S., et al.: Perun: virtual payment hubs over cryptographic currencies. In: Conference Version Accepted to the 40th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE S&P) 2019 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garay, J.A., et al.: Round complexity of authenticated broadcast with a dishonest majority. In: 48th FOCS (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katz, J., Lindell, Y.: Introduction to Modern Cryptography (Chapman & Hall/Crc Cryptography and Network Security Series) (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khalil, R., Gervais, A.: NOCUST - a non-custodial 2nd-layer financial intermediary. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/642 (2018).
  16. 16.
    Khalil, R., Gervais, A.: Revive: rebalancing off-blockchain payment networks. In: ACM CCS 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lind, J., et al.: Teechain: reducing storage costs on the blockchain with offline payment channels. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Systems and Storage Conference, SYSTOR 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malavolta, G., et al.: Concurrency and privacy with payment-channel networks. In: ACM CCS 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCorry, P., et al.: Pisa: arbitration outsourcing for state channels. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/582 (2018).
  20. 20.
    McCorry, P., et al.: You sank my battleship! A case study to evaluate state channels as a scaling solution for cryptocurrencies (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller, A., et al.: Sprites: payment channels that go faster than lightning. CoRR (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (2009).
  23. 23.
    Poon, J., Buterin, V.: Plasma: Scalable Autonomous Smart Contracts (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poon, J., Dryja, T.: The bitcoin lightning network: scalable off-chain instant payments. Draft version (2016).
  25. 25.
    Roos, S., et al.: Settling payments fast and private: efficient decentralized routing for path-based transactions. In: NDSS (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Szabo, N.: Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets. Extropy Mag. (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Dziembowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lisa Eckey
    • 2
  • Sebastian Faust
    • 2
  • Julia Hesse
    • 2
  • Kristina Hostáková
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WarsawWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Technische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations