Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contesting the Truth - Intentional Forking in BFT-PoS Blockchains

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Highlights of Practical Applications of Survivable Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. The PAAMS Collection (PAAMS 2019)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1047))

Abstract

Byzantine-Fault-Tolerant Proof-of-Stake Blockchains usually make strong guarantees regarding transaction and block finality, which makes them suitable technologies for consortium usage, where fluctuations in state are disturbing to business processes. Proof of Work Consensus however can not make finality guarantees as it employs the longest-chain-rule, where the longest chain dictates the current state, which can always be replaced by another longer chain.

In this paper we propose a dispute mechanism for BFT-PoS Blockchains, where intentional forking is used to replace non-optimal transactions for business cases, where the blockchain is used to store only optimal solutions. Based on the longest-chain-rule of PoW algorithms validator nodes agree upon a more optimized chain via their regular consensus to make adjustments to the previously agreed upon state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    cadeia project site - https://git.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/cadeia/cadeia.

References

  1. Antonopoulos, A.M.: Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ateniese, G., Magri, B., Venturi, D., Andrade, E.: Redactable blockchain-or-rewriting history in bitcoin and friends. In: 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), pp. 111–126. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bentov, I., Lee, C., Mizrahi, A., Rosenfeld, M.: Proof of activity: extending bitcoin’s proof of work via proof of stake. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2014/452 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braubach, L., Pokahr, A.: Developing distributed systems with active components and jadex. In: Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience, pp. 100–120 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buterin, V., et al.: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. White paper (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Castro, M., Liskov, B., et al.: Practical Byzantine fault tolerance. In: OSDI, vol. 99, pp. 173–186 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. David, B.M., Gazi, P., Kiayias, A., Russell, A.: Ouroboros praos: an adaptively-secure, semi-synchronous proof-of-stake protocol. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2017/573 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jain, A., Arora, S., Shukla, Y., Patil, T., Sawant-Patil, S.: Proof of stake with casper the friendly finality gadget protocol for fair validation consensus in ethereum. Int. J. Sci. Res. Comput. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 3(3), 291–298 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. King, S., Nadal, S.: PPCoin: peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake, 19 August 2012. Self-published paper

    Google Scholar 

  10. Krawczyk, H., Rabin, T.: Chameleon signatures. In: NDSS (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kwon, J.: Tendermint: consensus without mining. Draft v. 0.6, fall (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lampson, B., Sturgis, H.E.: Crash recovery in a distributed data storage system, January 1979. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/crash-recovery-in-a-distributed-data-storage-system/

  13. Mazieres, D.: The stellar consensus protocol: a federated model for internet-level consensus. Stellar Development Foundation (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pontiveros, B.B.F., Norvill, R., State, R.: Monitoring the transaction selection policy of bitcoin mining pools. In: 2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, NOMS 2018. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Posdorfer, W., Kalinowski, J., Bornholdt, H., Lamersdorf, W.: Decentralized billing and subcontracting of application services for cloud environment providers. In: Proceedings of the ESOCC 2018 Workshops, pp. 79–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schwartz, D., Youngs, N., Britto, A., et al.: The ripple protocol consensus algorithm. Ripple Labs Inc., White Paper, 5 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stübs, M., Posdorfer, W., Kalinowski, J.: Business-driven blockchain-mempool model for cooperative optimization in smart grids. In: International Conference on Smart Trends for Information Technology and Computer Communications. Springer, Heidelberg (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wood, G.: Ethereum: a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Paper, 151, pp. 1–39 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Hamburg, Vogt-Kölln-Straße 30, 22527, Hamburg, Germany

    Wolf Posdorfer & Julian Kalinowski

Authors
  1. Wolf Posdorfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Kalinowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolf Posdorfer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    Fernando De La Prieta

  2. University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    Alfonso González-Briones

  3. Poznań University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

    Pawel Pawleski

  4. HES-SO Valais Wallis, Sierre, Switzerland

    Davide Calvaresi

  5. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Elena Del Val

  6. National Laboratory for Energy and Geology, Amadora, Portugal

    Fernando Lopes

  7. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Vicente Julian

  8. Tecnalia Research & Innovation, Derio, Spain

    Eneko Osaba

  9. University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

    Ramón Sánchez-Iborra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Posdorfer, W., Kalinowski, J. (2019). Contesting the Truth - Intentional Forking in BFT-PoS Blockchains. In: De La Prieta, F., et al. Highlights of Practical Applications of Survivable Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. The PAAMS Collection. PAAMS 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1047. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24299-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24299-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24298-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24299-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation