Abstract
Miners in Ethereum need to make a choice when they receive a block: they can fully validate the block by executing every transaction in order to validate the new state, but this consumes precious time that could be used on mining the next block. Alternatively, miners could skip some of the verification stages and proceed with the mining, taking the risk of building on top of a potentially invalid block. This is referred to as the verifier’s dilemma.
Although the gas limit imposed on Ethereum blocks mitigates this attack by forcing an upper bound on the time spent during verification, the slowdown that can be achieved within a block can still be enough to have an impact on profitability.
In this paper we present a mining strategy based around sluggish contracts; these computationally intensive contracts are purposely designed to have a slow execution time in the Ethereum Virtual Machine to provide an advantage over other miners by slowing their contract verification time.
We validate our proposed mining strategy by designing and evaluating a set of candidate sluggish smart contracts. Furthermore, we provide a detailed analysis that shows under which conditions our strategy becomes profitable alongside a series of suggestions to detect this type of strategy in the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schoedon, A., Buterin, V.: Metropolis Difficulty Bomb Delay and Block Reward Reduction (2017). https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-649.md. Accessed December 2018
Buterin, V.: EXP cost increase (2016). https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-160.md. Accessed November 2018
Buterin, V.: Ethereum Improvement Proposal: Gas cost changes for IO-heavy operations (2017). https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-150.md. Accessed December 2018
Buterin, V.: Blockchain resource pricing (2018)
Chen, T., Li, X., Luo, X., Zhang, X.: Under-optimized smart contracts devour your money. In: 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 442–446. IEEE (2017)
Chen, T., et al.: An adaptive gas cost mechanism for ethereum to defend against under-priced DoS attacks. In: Liu, J.K., Samarati, P. (eds.) ISPEC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10701, pp. 3–24. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72359-4_1
Das, S., Ribeiro, V.J., Anand, A.: Yoda: enabling computationally intensive contracts on blockchains with byzantine and selfish nodes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03265 (2018)
Etherscan: Etherscan, the Ethereum Block Explorer (2018). https://etherscan.io/. Accessed December 2018
Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Commun. ACM 61(7), 95–102 (2018)
Foundation, E.: Ethash, December 2018. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Ethash
Heilman, E., Kendler, A., Zohar, A., Goldberg, S.: Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In: USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 129–144 (2015)
Kiayias, A., Koutsoupias, E., Kyropoulou, M., Tselekounis, Y.: Blockchain mining games. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pp. 365–382. ACM (2016)
Luu, L., Chu, D.H., Olickel, H., Saxena, P., Hobor, A.: Making smart contracts smarter. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 254–269. ACM (2016)
Luu, L., Teutsch, J., Kulkarni, R., Saxena, P.: Demystifying incentives in the consensus computer. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 706–719. ACM (2015)
Nayak, K., Kumar, S., Miller, A., Shi, E.: Stubborn mining: generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In: 2016 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), pp. 305–320. 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
Savers, N.: Hardfork Meta: Constantinople (2018). https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1013. Accessed December 2018
Schoedon, A.: Constantinople Difficulty Bomb Delay and Block Reward Adjustment (2017). https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1234.md. Accessed December 2018
Solidity: Solidity 0.5.1 documentation, December 2018. https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/v0.5.1/
Teutsch, J., Reitwießner, C.: A scalable verification solution for blockchains (2017)
Tikhomirov, S.: Ethereum: state of knowledge and research perspectives. In: Imine, A., Fernandez, J.M., Marion, J.-Y., Logrippo, L., Garcia-Alfaro, J. (eds.) FPS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10723, pp. 206–221. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75650-9_14
Torres, C.F., Schütte, J., State, R.: Osiris: hunting for integer bugs in ethereum smart contracts. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 664–676. ACSAC 2018, ACM, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3274694.3274737, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3274694.3274737
Wood, G.: Ethereum yellow paper (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 International Financial Cryptography Association
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fiz Pontiveros, B.B., Ferreira Torres, C., State, R. (2020). Sluggish Mining: Profiting from the Verifier’s Dilemma. In: Bracciali, A., Clark, J., Pintore, F., Rønne, P., Sala, M. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11599. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43725-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43725-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43724-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43725-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)