Tie-Breaking Rule Based on Partial Proof of Work in a Blockchain
Abstract: In the area of blockchain, numerous methods have been proposed for suppressing intentional forks by attackers more effectively than the random rule. However, all of them, except for the random rule, require major updates, rely on a trusted third party, or assume strong synchrony. Hence, it is challenging to apply these methods to existing systems such as Bitcoin. To address these issues, we propose another countermeasure that can be easily applied to existing proof of work blockchain systems. Our method is a tie-breaking rule that uses partial proof of work, which does not function as a block, as a time standard with finer granularity. By using the characteristic of partial proof of work, the proposed method enables miners to choose the last-generated block in a chain tie, which suppresses intentional forks by attackers. Only weak synchrony, which is already met by existing systems such as Bitcoin, is required for effective functioning. We evaluated the proposed method through a detailed analysis that is lacking in existing works. In networks that adopt our method, the proportion of the attacker hashrate necessary for selfish mining was approximately 0.31479 or higher, regardless of the block propagation capability of the attacker. Furthermore, we demonstrated through extended selfish mining that the impact of Match against pre-generated block, which is a concern in all last-generated rules, can be mitigated with appropriate parameter settings.
- S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” 2008.
- M. Castro and B. Liskov, “Practical byzantine fault tolerance,” in 3rd Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 99). New Orleans, LA: USENIX Association, Feb. 1999. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi-99/practical-byzantine-fault-tolerance
- I. Eyal and E. G. Sirer, “Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable,” 2013.
- E. Heilman, “One weird trick to stop selfish miners: Fresh bitcoins, a solution for the honest miner (poster abstract),” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security, R. Böhme, M. Brenner, T. Moore, and M. Smith, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014, pp. 161–162.
- J. Lee and Y. Kim, “Preventing bitcoin selfish mining using transaction creation time,” in 2018 International Conference on Software Security and Assurance (ICSSA), 2018, pp. 19–24.
- R. Zhang and B. Preneel, “Publish or perish: A backward-compatible defense against selfish mining in bitcoin,” in The Cryptographer’s Track at RSA Conference, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16499736
- S. Solat and M. Potop-Butucaru, “Zeroblock: Preventing selfish mining in bitcoin,” 05 2016.
- M. Saad, L. Njilla, C. Kamhoua, and A. Mohaisen, “Countering selfish mining in blockchains,” in 2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, feb 2019, pp. 360–364. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICCNC.2019.8685577
- S. Reno and S. Sultana, “Preventing selfish mining in public blockchain using alarming block and block interval time approach,” in 2022 International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS), 2022, pp. 988–993.
- Y. Kwon, D. Kim, Y. Son, E. Vasserman, and Y. Kim, “Be selfish and avoid dilemmas,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, oct 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3133956.3134019
- A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar, “Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin,” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security, J. Grossklags and B. Preneel, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017, pp. 515–532.
- K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi, “Stubborn Mining: Generalizing Selfish Mining and Combining with an Eclipse Attack,” in 2016 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), 2016, pp. 305–320.
- “Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger,” https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf.
- “Why doesn’t bitcoin use a tiebreaking rule when comparing chains of equal length?” https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355644.0, December 2013, online; accessed 6-November-2023.
- Y. Sompolinsky and A. Zohar, “Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin,” in Financial Cryptography, 2015.
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, “Bitcoin: Overview of the current state of the network,” https://www.dsn.kastel.kit.edu/bitcoin/#propagation, 2023, accessed: 2023-08-06.
- C. Dwork and M. Naor, “Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail,” in Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Cryptology Conference on Advances in Cryptology, ser. CRYPTO ’92. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 139–147.
- C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer, “Information propagation in the bitcoin network,” in IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings, 2013, pp. 1–10.
- A. Sakurai and K. Shudo, “Impact of the hash rate on the theoretical fork rate of blockchain,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), 2023, pp. 1–4.
- A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wüst, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, and S. Capkun, “On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains,” Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016.
- “Litecoin,” https://litecoin.org/ja/, 2023, accessed: 2023-11-07.
- Y. Aoki, K. Otsuki, T. Kaneko, R. Banno, and K. Shudo, “Simblock: A blockchain network simulator,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM 2019 Workshops), 2019, pp. 325–329.
- M. Corallo, “Compact block relay,” https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0152.mediawiki, 2016, accessed: Aug. 16. 2022.
- “Bitcoin OP RETURN wiki page,” https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN, 2023, accessed: 2023-11-20.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Secure hash standard (shs),” Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 180-4, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.180-4.pdf
- A. P. Ozisik, G. Andresen, B. N. Levine, D. Tapp, G. Bissias, and S. Katkuri, “Graphene: Efficient interactive set reconciliation applied to blockchain propagation,” in Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, ser. SIGCOMM ’19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, pp. 303–317. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342082
- H. Marouani and M. R. Dagenais, “Internal clock drift estimation in computer clusters,” J. Comp. Sys., Netw., and Comm., vol. 2008, jan 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/583162
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.