Scientific Journal

Applied Aspects of Information Technology

PROOF-OF-GREED APPROACH IN THE NXT CONSENSUS
Abstract:

A fundamental problem in distributed computing systems is to make the same decision on an issue. The consensus protocol describes a process to agree on some data value that is needed during computation. The work is devoted to development of the consensus algorithm based on the Nxt consensus protocol which can be implemented to blockchain systems with PoS (Proof-of-Stake). PoS consensuses based on node balances, and unlike PoW (Proof-of-Work) methods, are environmentally friendly and more energy efficient. Nowadays such types of consensuses are getting more popular. However, they remain less scrutinized than PoW. Moreover, there are some attacks and threats that cannot be completely resolved under PoS consensuses, and in particular under the Nxt. In this article we propose a modification of the Nxt protocol which solves some problems of PoS in accordance with modern requirements. The asymmetric method was used to select the best Nxt consensus parameters for decreasing of the blocktime variance. This improves the performance and reliability of the entire blockchain system eliminating the risk of disruptions due to overflowing the transaction pool. For the Nxt consensus protocol researching, the mathematical simulating model was developed using Anylogic 8.4 software. Implementation of economic leverages (tokenomics), which we called Proof-of-Greed approach, allows to prevent some types of attacks, e.g. large stake attack, and to set a fair market-based transaction fee. The using of economic mechanisms to protect distributed systems allows to prevent a number of attacks that are resistant to cryptographic methods. But at the same time, the tokenomics of the system should be strictly consistent with the protocols for the functioning of all system objects, combining them into an integrated unitary ecosystem. Also, a payback period of harvesters was investigated within Proof-of-Greed protocol. The parameters of such approach for sustained operation of a network were obtained as a result of mathematical simulating with Anylogic 8.4 software. The Proof-of-Greed approach can be implemented not only in the Nxt consensus but in some other blockchain systems based on PoS consensuses.

Authors:
Keywords
References
1. Tanenbaum, Andrew S. & Steen, Maarten van. (2002). “Distributed systems: principles and paradigms”. Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. (2017). ISBN 0-13-088893-1.
2. Nakamoto, S. (2019). “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
3. Bentov, I., Pass, R., & Shi, E. (2016). “Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake”, IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016, 919.
4. Vashchuk, O. & Shuwar, R. (2018). “Pros and cons of consensus algorithm proof of stake. Difference in the network safety in proof of work and proof of stake”, Electronics and Information Technologies, Issue 9, pp. 106-112.
5. (2018). “Whitepaper: Nxt”. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: .https://nxtwiki.org/wiki/ Whitepaper:Nxt#Block_Creation_. 28Forging.29, Whitepaper: Nxt. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
6. (2019). “Nxt. Own your data, control your world/privacy/money/budget/assets/choice/vote/freedom/name/rights/files/IP/records/trade/market” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://nxtplatform.org/ Title from the screen. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
7. Bach, L., Mihaljevic, B. & Zagar. (2018). “Comparative analysis of blockchain consensus algorithms”, International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), pp. 1791-1796.
8. (2014). “MTHCL. The math of Nxt forging” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.docdroid.net/ecmz/forging0-5-2.pdf.html, The math of Nxt forging. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
9. Popov, S. A. (2016). “Probabilistic Analysis of the Nxt Forging Algorithm”, Journal of Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology Research “Ledger”, Vol. 1, pp. 69-83.
10. (2019). “AnyLogic: Multimethod Simulation Software 8.4” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www.anylogic.com/, AnyLogic simulation software. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
11. (2019). MTHCL. “BaseTarget adjustment algorithm” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://nxtforum.org/proof-of-stake-algorithm/basetarget-adjustment-algorithm/ (registration on nxtforum.org required), BaseTarget adjustment algorithm. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
12. Schilling, M. (1990). “The Longest Run of Heads”, The College Math J., 21 (3), рр. 196-206.
13. Ross, Sheldon M. (2009). “A First Course in Probability”, 8th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, 520 p.
14. Ross, Sheldon M. (2012). Introduction to Probability Models. 10th ed. Elsevier, 784 p.
15. Yung, M., Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T. & Bernstein, D. J. (2006). “Curve25519: New Diffie-Hellman Speed Records”, Public Key Cryptography, 2006, 207-228, doi: 10.1007/11745853_14.
16. Qin, W. & Zhou, N. (2010). “New concurrent digital signature scheme based on the computational Diffie-Hellman problem”, The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications, 17(6), 89-100, doi: 10.1016/S1005-8885(09)60530-6.
17. (2019). “Profitability calculator for cryptocurrency mining and the pay-back period for mining equipment (GPU graphics cards and ASIC miners)” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://coinsbase.org/mining/mining-calculator/, Profitability calculator for cryptocurrency mining and the pay-back period for mining equipment. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
18. (2019). “Save Big with Cryptocurrency Tax Loss Harvesting” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://medium.com/cointracker/save-big-with-cryptocurrency-tax-loss-harvesting-5abd2e68d65c, Save Big with Cryptocurrency Tax Loss Harvesting. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
19. (2019). Cryptofees [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://cryptofees.net/, Cryptofees. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
20. (2019). “Bitcoin Users Are 'Overpaying' in Transaction Fees, Data Suggests” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://www.cryptoglobe. com/latest/2019/04/bitcoin-users-are-overpaying-in-transaction-fees-data-suggests/, Bitcoin Users Are 'Overpaying' in Transaction Fees, Data Suggests. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
21. (2019). “Learn Cryptography 51 % Attack (n.d.)” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://learncryptography.com/51-attack/, 51 % Attack. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
22. (2019). “In cryptoland, trust can be costly” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://securelist.com/in-cryptoland-trust-can-be-costly/86367/. In crypto land, trust can be costly – Active link – 17.02.2019.
23. (2019). “Forging vs. Mining”, Part 1 [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://medium.com/metahash/forging-vs-mining-part-1-88405d0c5664, Forging vs Mining. Part 1. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
24. (2019). “The most profitable PoS coins to Forge” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://medium.com/@poolofstake/the-most-profitable-pos-coins-to-forge-ffe24745c917. The most profitable PoS coins to Forge. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
25. (2019). “Cyber Attacks Cryptographic Attacks” [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www.valencynetworks.com/articles/cyber-attacks-cryptographic-attacks.html, Cyber Attacks Cryptographic Attacks. – Active link – 17.05.2019.
26. (2019). “Attacks on Cryptosystems> “ [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/cryptography/attacks_on_cryptosystems.htm, Attacks on Cryptosystems. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
27. (2019). “Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://medium.com/@dsl_uiuc/fake-stake-attacks-on-chain-based-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrencies-b8b05723f806, “Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies. – Active link – 17.02.2019.
28. Berengueres, J. (2018). “Valuation of Crypto-Currency Mining Operations”, The Journal of Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology Research “Ledger”, Vol. 3, pp 60-67.
29. Kiayias, A., Russell, A., David, B., Oliynykov, R. (2016). “Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of stake blockchain protocol”, Tech. rep., Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/889, http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.
30. Wenting Li, Sebastien Andreina, Jens-Matthias Bohli, & Ghassan Karame. (2017). “Securing Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocols”, European Symposium on Research in Computer, Security International Workshop on Data Privacy Management Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-67816-0_17.

Published:
Last download:
9 Dec 2019

[ © KarelWintersky ] [ All articles ] [ All authors ]
[ © Odessa National Polytechnic University, 2018.]