Most popular blockchain solutions, like Bitcoin, rely on proof-of-work, guaranteeing that the output of the consensus is agreed upon with high probability. However, this probability depends on the delivery of messages and that the computational power of the system is sufficiently scattered among pools of nodes in the network so that no pool can mine more blocks faster than the crowd. New approaches, like Ethereum, generalise the proof-of-work approach by letting individuals deploy their own private blockchain with high transaction throughput. As companies are starting to deploy private chains, it has become crucial to better understand the guarantees blockchains offer in such a small and controlled environment. In this paper, we present the , an execution that we experienced when building our private chain at NICTA Data61. Even though this anomaly has never been acknowledged before, it may translate into dramatic consequences for the user of blockchains. Named after the infamous Paxos anomaly, this anomaly makes dependent transactions, like "Bob sends money to Carole after he received money from Alice" impossible. This anomaly relies on the fact that existing blockchains do not ensure consensus safety deterministically: there is no way for Bob to make sure that Alice actually sent him coins without Bob using an external mechanism, like converting these coins into a fiat currency that allows him to withdraw. We also explore smart contracts as a potential alternative to transactions in order to freeze coins, and show implementations of smart contract that can suffer from the Blockchain anomaly and others that may cope with it.
Tendermint http: tendermint.com . is a blockchain system building upon proof-of-stake. It is known to favour consistency over availability, taking the opposite view of Casper, the proof-of-stake alternative to the Ghost protocol. The Tendermint consensus protocol builds upon the Byzantine agreement protocol with authentication @cite_1 and requires strictly more than two third of correct processes to ensure agreement and validity deterministically and to guarantee termination when the network stabilises and messages between non-faulty nodes get delivered.
@cite_1
2003214215
A blockchain is a distributed ledger for recording transactions, maintained by many nodes without central authority through a distributed cryptographic protocol. All nodes validate the information to be appended to the blockchain, and a consensus protocol ensures that the nodes agree on a unique order in which entries are appended. Consensus protocols for tolerating Byzantine faults have received renewed attention because they also address blockchain systems. This work discusses the process of assessing and gaining confidence in the resilience of a consensus protocols exposed to faults and adversarial nodes. We advocate to follow the established practice in cryptography and computer security, relying on public reviews, detailed models, and formal proofs; the designers of several practical systems appear to be unaware of this. Moreover, we review the consensus protocols in some prominent permissioned blockchain platforms with respect to their fault models and resilience against attacks. The protocol comparison covers Hyperledger Fabric, Tendermint, Symbiont, R3 Corda, Iroha, Kadena, Chain, Quorum, MultiChain, Sawtooth Lake, Ripple, Stellar, and IOTA. We introduce Casper, a proof of stake-based finality system which overlays an existing proof of work blockchain. Casper is a partial consensus mechanism combining proof of stake algorithm research and Byzantine fault tolerant consensus theory. We introduce our system, prove some desirable features, and show defenses against long range revisions and catastrophic crashes. The Casper overlay provides almost any proof of work chain with additional protections against block reversions. Abstract A consensus protocol enables a system of n asynchronous processes, some of them faulty, to reach agreement. Both the processes and the message system are capable of cooperating to prevent the correct processes from reaching decision. A protocol is t -resilient if in the presence of up to t faulty processes it reaches agreement with probability 1. Byzantine processes are faulty processes that can deviate arbitrarily from the protocol; Fail-Stop processes can just stop participating in it. In a recent paper, t -resilient randomized consensus protocols were presented for t n 5 . We improve this to t n 3 , thus matching the known lower bound on the number of correct processes necessary for consensus. The protocol uses a general technique in which the behavior of the Byzantine processes is restricted by the use of a broadcast protocol that filters some of the messages. The apparent behavior of the Byzantine processes, filtered by the broadcast protocol, is similar to that of Fail-Stop processes. Plugging the broadcast protocol as a communicating primitive into an agreement protocol for Fail-Stop processes gives the result. This technique, of using broadcast protocols to reduce the power of the faulty processes and then using them as communication primitives in algorithms designed for weaker failure models, was used succesfully in other contexts. Three decades ago, introduced the problem of Byzantine Agreement [PSL80] where nodes need to maintain a consistent view of the world in spite of the challenge posed by Byzantine faults. Subsequently, it is well known that Byzantine agreement over a completely connected synchronous network of n nodes tolerating up to t faults is (efficiently) possible if and only if t < n 3. further empowered the nodes with the ability to authenticate themselves and their messages and proved that agreement in this new model (popularly known as authenticated Byzantine agreement (ABA)) is possible if and only if t < n. (which is a huge improvement over the bound of t < n 3 in the absence of authentication for the same functionality). To understand the utility, potential and limitations of using authentication in distributed protocols for agreement, [GGBS10] studied ABA in new light. They generalize the existing models and thus, attempt to give a unified theory of agreements over the authenticated and non-authenticated domains. In this paper we extend their results to synchronous (undirected) networks and give a complete characterization of agreement protocols. As a corollary, we show that agreement can be strictly easier than all-pair point-to-point communication. It is well known that in a synchronous network over n nodes of which up to any t are corrupted by a Byzantine adversary, BA is possible only if all pair point-to-point reliable communication is possible [Dol82, DDWY93]. Thus, a folklore in the area is that maintaining global consistency (agreement) is at least as hard as the problem of all pair point-to-point communication. Equivalently, it is widely believed that protocols for BA over incomplete networks exist only if it is possible to simulate an overlay-ed complete network. Surprisingly, we show that the folklore is not always true. Thus, it seems that agreement protocols may be more fundamental to distributed computing than reliable communication.