Abstract
One of the key ideas for enhancing the scalability of blockchain lies in having consensus among a smaller set of nodes rather than the set of all nodes be it PoW (Proof of Work) or PoS (Proof of Stake). Such a transformation calls for analysis of trust in the transformed consensus, forking, progress, fairness, etc. Thus, one major requirement is to ensure the correct functioning of PoW or PoS under the BFT (Byzantine Fault Tolerance) of the network remains invariant in spite of the transformation. Note that the conditions for scalability of PoW and BFT are somewhat contradictory, in the sense that PoW is good for a large network with very low throughput and BFT is good for a small network with high throughput. For scalability, we need high node scalability as in permissionless blockchain, and high transaction throughput as in permissioned blockchain. In this paper, we analyse different consensus mechanisms used in blockchain platforms like Ripple, Algorand, Red Belly, etc, for the correctness and also conditions required for overcoming forking or avoiding not-making progress. Our analysis is based on the widely used Rand Index used similarity measurement of data clusters. Our results show that the scalability of blockchain platforms requires a subtle assessment of correctness, forking, not making progress, or unfairness issues and cannot be just based on the experimental evaluation.
Supported by Center for Blockchain Research funded by Ripple Inc. USA.
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
References
Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)
Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Consulted 1(2012), 28 (2008)
Vukolić, M.: The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: proof-of-work vs. BFT replication. In: Camenisch, J., Kesdoğan, D. (eds.) iNetSec 2015. LNCS, vol. 9591, pp. 112–125. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39028-4_9
Pass, R., Shi, E.: Hybrid consensus: Efficient consensus in the permissionless model. Cryptology ePrint Archive (2016)
Schwartz, D., Youngs, N., Britto, A.: The Ripple protocol consensus algorithm. Ripple Labs Inc., available online. https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf (2014)
Armknecht, F., Karame, G.O., Mandal, A., Youssef, F., Zenner, E.: Ripple: overview and outlook. In: Conti, M., Schunter, M., Askoxylakis, I. (eds.) Trust 2015. LNCS, vol. 9229, pp. 163–180. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22846-4_10
Chase, B., MacBrough, E.: Analysis of the XRP Ledger Consensus Protocol (2018). arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07242
Rand Index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_index
Amores-Sesar, I., Cachin, C., Micic, J.: Security analysis of ripple consensus. In: Proceedings of 24th Int. Conf. Princ. Distrib. Syst. (OPODIS), pp. 10:1–10:16, November 2020
Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4(3), 382–401 (1982)
Gilad, Y., Hemo, R., Micali, S., Vlachos, G., Zeldovich, N.: Algorand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies, In Proc. 26th SOSP, pp. 51–68. ACM, October 2017
Borran, F., Schiper, A.: A leader-free Byzantine consensus algorithm. In: ICDCN, pp. 67–78 (2010)
Crain, T., Natoli, C., Gramoli, V.: Red belly: a secure, fair and scalable open blockchain. In: 2021 IEEE S & P, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 466–483 (2021)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Roy, S., Shyamasundar, R.K. (2023). An Analysis of Hybrid Consensus in Blockchain Protocols for Correctness and Progress. In: Atluri, V., Ferrara, A.L. (eds) Data and Applications Security and Privacy XXXVII. DBSec 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13942. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37586-6_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37586-6_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-37585-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-37586-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
