Full Text:
<2039>
Summary: 
<1639>
CLC number: TP301
On-line Access: 2019-11-11
Received: 2018-02-23
Revision Accepted: 2018-05-18
Crosschecked: 2019-09-04
Cited: 0
Clicked: 5206
Low powered blockchain consensus protocols based on consistent hash
| ||||||||||||||
Lei Yu, Xiao-fang Zhao, Yan Jin, Heng-yi Cai, Bo Wei, Bin Hu. Low powered blockchain consensus protocols based on consistent hash[J]. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 2019, 20(10): 1361-1377.
@article{title="Low powered blockchain consensus protocols based on consistent hash",
author="Lei Yu, Xiao-fang Zhao, Yan Jin, Heng-yi Cai, Bo Wei, Bin Hu",
journal="Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering",
volume="20",
number="10",
pages="1361-1377",
year="2019",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/FITEE.1800119"
}
%0 Journal Article
%T Low powered blockchain consensus protocols based on consistent hash
%A Lei Yu
%A Xiao-fang Zhao
%A Yan Jin
%A Heng-yi Cai
%A Bo Wei
%A Bin Hu
%J Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering
%V 20
%N 10
%P 1361-1377
%@ 2095-9184
%D 2019
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/FITEE.1800119
TY - JOUR
T1 - Low powered blockchain consensus protocols based on consistent hash
A1 - Lei Yu
A1 - Xiao-fang Zhao
A1 - Yan Jin
A1 - Heng-yi Cai
A1 - Bo Wei
A1 - Bin Hu
J0 - Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering
VL - 20
IS - 10
SP - 1361
EP - 1377
%@ 2095-9184
Y1 - 2019
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/FITEE.1800119
Abstract: Current blockchain consensus protocols have a triangle of contradictions in aspects of decentralization, security, and energy con-sumption, and cannot be synchronously optimized. We describe a design of two new blockchain consensus protocols, called “CHB-consensus” and “CHBD-consensus,” based on a consistent hash algorithm. Honest miners can fairly gain the opportunity to create blocks. They do not consume any extra computational power resources when creating new blocks, and such blocks can obtain the whole blockchain network to confirm consensus with fairness. However, malicious miners have to pay massive computational power resources for attacking the new block creation privilege or double-spending. blockchain networks formed by CHB-consensus and CHBD-consensus are based on the same security assumption as that in Bitcoin systems, so they save a huge amount of power without sacrificing decentralization or security. We analyze possible attacks and give a rigorous but adjustable validation strategy. CHB-consensus and CHBD-consensus introduce a certification authority (CA) system, which does not have special management or control rights over blockchain networks or data structures, but carries the risk of privacy breaches depending on credibility and reliability of the CA system. Here, we analyze the robustness and energy consumption of CHB-consensus and CHBD-consensus, and demonstrate their advantages through theoretical derivation.
[1]Asolo B, 2018. Delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) explained. https://www.mycryptopedia.com/delegated-proof-stake-dpos-explained/
[2]Back A, 2002. Hashcash—a denial of service counter-measure. http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf
[3]Bahri L, Girdzijauskas S, 2018. When trust saves energy: a reference framework for proof of trust (PoT) blockchains. Companion Proc Web Conf, p.1165-1169.
[4]Castro M, Liskov B, 1999. Practical Byzantine fault tolerance. Proc 3rd Symp on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.173-186.
[5]Douceur JR, 2002. The Sybil attack. In: Druschel P, Kaashoek F, Rowstron A (Eds.), Peer-to-Peer Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p.251-260.
[6]Dwork C, Naor M, 1992. Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. Proc 12th Annual Int Cryptology Conf on Advances in Cryptology, p.139-147.
[7]Fan J, Yi LT, Shu JW, 2013. Research on the technologies of Byzantine system. J Softw, 24(6):1346-1360 (in Chinese).
[8]Fedotova N, Veltri L, 2006. Byzantine generals problem in the light of P2P computing. Proc 3rd Annual Int Conf on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking & Services, p.1-5.
[9]Giungato P, Rana R, Tarabella A, et al., 2017. Current trends in sustainability of Bitcoins and related blockchain technology. Sustainability, 9(12), Article 2214.
[10]Karger D, Lehman E, Leighton T, et al., 1997. Consistent hashing and random trees: distributed caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the World Wide Web. Proc 29th Annual ACM Symp on Theory of Computing, p.654-663.
[11]King S, Nadal S, 2012. PPCoin: peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. https://peercoin.net/assets/paper/peercoin-paper.pdf
[12]Lamport L, 1983. The weak Byzantine generals problem. J ACM, 30(3):668-676.
[13]Lamport L, Shostak R, Pease M, 1982. The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans Programm Lang Syst, 4(3):382 401.
[14]Milutinovic M, He W, Wu H, et al., 2016. Proof of luck: an efficient blockchain consensus protocol. Proc 1st Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution, p.1-6.
[15]Mishra SP, Jacob V, Radhakrishnan S, 2017. Energy consumption—Bitcoin’s Achilles heel. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3076734
[16]Nakamoto S, 2008. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
[17]Nelson M, 2007. The Byzantine generals problem. http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/the-byzantine-generals-problem/206904396
[18]O’Dwyer KJ, Malone D, 2014. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. Proc 25th IET Irish Signals & Systems Conf and China-Ireland Int Conf on Information and Communications Technologies, p.280-285.
[19]Reischuk R, 1985. A new solution for the Byzantine generals problem. Inform Contr, 64(1-3):23-42.
[20]Vranken H, 2017. Sustainability of Bitcoin and blockchains. Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 28:1-9.
[21]Yuan Y, Wang FY, 2016. Blockchain: the state of the art and future trends. Acta Autom Sin, 42(4):481-494 (in Chinese).
ORCID: 
Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion
<1>