Abstract
So far, the topic of merged mining has mainly been considered in a security context, covering issues such as mining power centralization or cross-chain attack scenarios. In this work we show that key information for determining blockchain metrics such as the fork rate can be recovered through data extracted from merge mined cryptocurrencies. Specifically, we reconstruct a long-ranging view of forks and stale blocks in Bitcoin from its merge mined child chains, and compare our results to previous findings that were derived from live measurements. Thereby, we show that live monitoring alone is not sufficient to capture a large majority of these events, as we are able to identify a non-negligible portion of stale blocks that were previously unaccounted for. Their authenticity is ensured by cryptographic evidence regarding both, their position in the respective blockchain, as well as the Proof-of-Work difficulty.
Furthermore, by applying this new technique to Litecoin and its child cryptocurrencies, we are able to provide the first extensive view and lower bound on the stale block and fork rate in the Litecoin network. Finally, we outline that a recovery of other important metrics and blockchain characteristics through merged mining may also be possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
In Bitcoin core [24] the RPC command getchaintips can be used to list all forks and stale blocks the local node knows of.
- 3.
Assuming the miner follows the protocol rule of extending the longest chain it knows of.
- 4.
In Litecoin and its children this validation is not possible because a DSHA256 hash of the block header is used for linking, instead of the scrypt hash used for the PoW.
- 5.
We also validated if the AuxPoW actually meets the difficulty encoded in the child.
References
Decker, C., Wattenhofer, R.: Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In: Thirteenth International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2013)
Gervais, A., Karame, O., Wüst, K., Glykantzis, V., Ritzdorf, H., Capkun, S.: On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC, pp. 3–16. ACM (2016)
Gencer, A.E., Basu, S., Eyal, I., van Renesse, R., Sirer, E.G.: Decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks. In: Meiklejohn, S., Sako, K. (eds.) FC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10957, pp. 439–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58387-6_24
Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In: Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R. (eds.) FC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8437, pp. 436–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45472-5_28
Nayak, K., Kumar, S., Miller, A., Shi, E.: Stubborn mining: generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In: 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE (2016)
Sapirshtein, A., Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In: Grossklags, J., Preneel, B. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9603, pp. 515–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54970-4_30
Bonneau, J.: Why buy when you can rent? Bribery attacks on bitcoin consensus. In: BITCOIN 2016: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Bitcoin and Blockchain Research, February 2016
Liao, K., Katz, J.: Incentivizing blockchain forks via whale transactions. In: Brenner, M., et al. (eds.) FC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10323, pp. 264–279. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_17
McCorry, P., Hicks, A., Meiklejohn, S.: Smart contracts for bribing miners. In: Zohar, A., et al. (eds.) FC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10958, pp. 3–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_1
Zamyatin, A., Stifter, N., Judmayer, A., Schindler, P., Weippl, E., Knottenbelt, W.J.: A wild velvet fork appears! Inclusive blockchain protocol changes in practice. In: Zohar, A., et al. (eds.) FC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10958, pp. 31–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_3
Blockchain.com: Blockchain.com orphaned blocks. https://www.blockchain.com/btc/orphaned-blocks, Blockchain.com. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
BitcoinChain.com: Bitcoinchain bitcoin block explorer. https://bitcoinchain.com/block_explorer, BitcoinChain.com. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
ChainQuery.com: A web based interface to the bitcoin API JSON-RPC. http://chainquery.com/bitcoin-api, ChainQuery.com. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Project, L.: Litecoin. https://litecoin.org/. Accessed 29 Mar 2016
Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: Accelerating bitcoin’s transaction processing. fast money grows on trees, not chains (2013). http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf
Miller, A., LaViola, J.J.: Anonymous Byzantine consensus from moderately-hard puzzles: a model for bitcoin (2014). https://socrates1024.s3.amazonaws.com/consensus.pdf. Accessed 09 Mar 2016
Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Leonardos, N.: The bitcoin backbone protocol: analysis and applications. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 281–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_10
Pass, R., Shi, E.: FruitChains: a fair blockchain (2016). http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/916.pdf
Pass, R., Seeman, L., Shelat, A.: Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 643–673. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56614-6_22
Croman, K., et al.: On scaling decentralized blockchains. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 106–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_8
Kiayias, A., Panagiotakos, G.: On trees, chains and fast transactions in the blockchain. In: Lange, T., Dunkelman, O. (eds.) LATINCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 11368, pp. 327–351. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25283-0_18
Sompolinsky, Y., Lewenberg, Y., Zohar, A.: SPECTRE: a fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/1159 (2016). http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1159.pdf
Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: PHANTOM: a scalable blockdag protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/104 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/104.pdf
Bitcoin community: Bitcoin-core source code. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Miller, A., et al.: Discovering bitcoin’s public topology and influential nodes, May 2015. http://cs.umd.edu/projects/coinscope/coinscope.pdf. Accessed 09 Mar 2016
Chainz.cryptoid.info: Chainz blockchain explorers. chainz.cryptoid.info/. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Narayanan, A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E., Miller, A., Goldfeder, S.: Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2016). Accessed 29 Mar 2016
Judmayer, A., Zamyatin, A., Stifter, N., Voyiatzis, A.G., Weippl, E.: Merged mining: curse or cure? In: Garcia-Alfaro, J., Navarro-Arribas, G., Hartenstein, H., Herrera-Joancomartí, J. (eds.) ESORICS/DPM/CBT -2017. LNCS, vol. 10436, pp. 316–333. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67816-0_18
Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols (extended abstract). In: Preneel, B. (ed.) Secure Information Networks. ITIFIP, vol. 23, pp. 258–272. Springer, Boston, MA (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35568-9_18
Judmayer, A., Stifter, N., Krombholz, K., Weippl, E.: Blocks and chains: introduction to bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and their consensus mechanisms. Synth. Lect. Inf. Secur. Priv. Trust 9(1), 1–123 (2017)
Kiayias, A., Miller, A., Zindros, D.: Non-interactive proofs of proof-of-work. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/963 (2017). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/963.pdf
Namecoin community: Namecoin source code - chainparams.cpp. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/blob/fdfb20fc263a72acc2a3c460b56b64245c1bedcb/src/chainparams.cpp#L123. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Namecoin community: Namecoin source code - auxpow.cpp. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/blob/fdfb20fc263a72acc2a3c460b56b64245c1bedcb/src/auxpow.cpp#L177-L200. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
I0Coin community: I0coin source code. https://github.com/domob1812/i0coin. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, December 2008. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed 01 Jul 2015
Courtois, N.T., Bahack, L.: On subversive miner strategies and block withholding attack in bitcoin digital currency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.1718 (2014). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.1718.pdf
Göbel, J., Keeler, H.P., Krzesinski, A.E., Taylor, P.G.: Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: the selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay. Perform. Eval. 104, 23–41 (2016)
Neo4J Developers: Neo4j (2012). https://neo4j.com/
Andresen, G.: Bitcoin improvement proposal 34 (bip34): block v2, height in coinbase. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Corello, M.: Fast internet bitcoin relay engine. http://bitcoinfibre.org/. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Daftuar, S.: Sendheaders message. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0130. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Bowden, R., Keeler, H.P., Krzesinski, A.E., Taylor, P.G.: Block arrivals in the bitcoin blockchain (2018). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.07447.pdf
GeistGeld community: Geistgeld source code. https://github.com/Lolcust/GeistGeld. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Ozisik, A.P., Bissias, G., Levine, B.: Estimation of miner hash rates and consensus on blockchains. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00082 (2017). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.00082.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2017
Duffield, E., Diaz, D.: Dash: a payments-focused cryptocurrency, August 2013. https://github.com/dashpay/dash/wiki/Whitepaper. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Van Saberhagen, N.: Cryptonote v 2.0, October 2013. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf
Hall, G.: Guide: merge mining 6 scrypt coins at full hashpower, simultaneously, April 2014. https://www.ccn.com/guide-simultaneously-mining-5-scrypt-coins-full-hashpower/. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
United-scrypt coin: [ann][usc] first merged minable scryptcoin unitedscryptcoin, November 2013. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=353688.0. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
Donet Donet, J.A., Pérez-Solà, C., Herrera-Joancomartí, J.: The bitcoin P2P network. In: Böhme, R., Brenner, M., Moore, T., Smith, M. (eds.) FC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8438, pp. 87–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44774-1_7
Bartoletti, M., Pompianu, L.: An analysis of bitcoin OP\(\_\)RETURN metadata. In: Brenner, M., et al. (eds.) FC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10323, pp. 218–230. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_14
Matzutt, R., et al.: A quantitative analysis of the impact of arbitrary blockchain content on bitcoin. In: Meiklejohn, S., Sako, K. (eds.) FC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10957, pp. 420–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58387-6_23
Grundmann, M., Neudecker, T., Hartenstein, H.: Exploiting transaction accumulation and double spends for topology inference in bitcoin. In: Zohar, A., et al. (eds.) FC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10958, pp. 113–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_9
Judmayer, A., Stifter, N., Schindler, P., Weippl, E.: Pitchforks in cryptocurrencies: enforcing rule changes through offensive forking- and consensus techniques (short paper). In: Garcia-Alfaro, J., Herrera-Joancomartí, J., Livraga, G., Rios, R. (eds.) DPM/CBT -2018. LNCS, vol. 11025, pp. 197–206. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00305-0_15
Acknowledgments
We thank Georg Merzdovnik as well as the participants of Dagstuhl Seminar 18152 “Blockchains, Smart Contracts and Future Applications” for valuable discussions and insights. We thank Christian Decker, Roger Wattenhofer, Till Neudecker, Blockchain.com and chainz.cryptoid.info for the live monitoring data they kindly provided. This research was funded by Bridge Early Stage 846573 A2Bit, Bridge 1 858561 SESC, Bridge 1 864738 PR4DLT (all FFG), the Christian Doppler Laboratory for Security and Quality Improvement in the Production System Lifecycle (CDL-SQI), Institute of Information Systems Engineering, TU Wien, Blockchain.com and the competence center SBA-K1 funded by COMET. The financial support by the Christian Doppler Research Association, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
A Appendix
A Appendix
1.1 A.1 Bitcoin Total Number of Stale Blocks for Different Data Sources
Table 3 shows both, the total number of unique stale blocks exclusive to the data source, as well as the overall number of (non-duplicate) stale blocks it contains.
1.2 A.2 Litecoin Stale Block Rate Comparison
As we have previously outlined in Subsect. 5.3, the live monitoring data we were able to obtain for Litecoin was relatively limited and only contained 223 stale blocks/forks. Nevertheless, we plot this live monitoring data against the recovered stale blocks through merged mining in Fig. 9 and show that the data sets also contain some overlap. Again, our recovered data only contains stale blocks that can be cryptographically linked to the canonical Litecoin chain and which meet the prescribed difficulty target (Table 4).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 International Financial Cryptography Association
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stifter, N., Schindler, P., Judmayer, A., Zamyatin, A., Kern, A., Weippl, E. (2019). Echoes of the Past: Recovering Blockchain Metrics from Merged Mining. In: Goldberg, I., Moore, T. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11598. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32101-7_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32101-7_31
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32100-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32101-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)