Skip to main content

Managing Write Access Without Token Fees in Leaderless DAG-Based Ledgers

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Blockchain and Applications, 5th International Congress (BLOCKCHAIN 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 778))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A significant portion of research on distributed ledgers has focused on circumventing the limitations of leader-based blockchains mainly in terms of scalability, decentralization and power consumption. Leaderless architectures based on directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) avoid many of these limitations altogether, but their increased flexibility and performance comes at the cost of increased design complexity, so their potential has remained largely unexplored. Management of write access to these ledgers presents a major challenge because ledger updates may be made in parallel, hence transactions cannot simply be serialised and prioritised according to token fees paid to validators. In this work, we propose an access control scheme for leaderless DAG ledgers based on access credits, a quantity generated by tokens to guarantee access, instead of paying fees in the base token. We outline a general model for this new approach and provide simulation results highlighting the performance of this solution in terms of credits consumed and delay guarantees according to varying traffic conditions and heterogeneous user behavior.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To counteract a large accumulation of Access Credit that could undermine the decentralization of the network, we suggest to couple the Access Credit to a decay function. For the sake of simplicity, we do not consider this decay function here.

References

  1. Bagaria, V., Kannan, S., Tse, D., Fanti, G., Viswanath, P.: Prism: deconstructing the blockchain to approach physical limits. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2019, pp. 585ā€“602. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baird, L., Harmon, M., Madsen, P.: Hedera: a public hashgraph network and governing council (2020). Accessed Feb 2023

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: SoK: research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 104ā€“121. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daian, P., et al.: Flash boys 2.0: frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability. In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 910ā€“927. IEEE (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Danezis, G., Kokoris-Kogias, L., Sonnino, A., Spiegelman, A.: Narwhal and tusk: a DAG-based mempool and efficient BFT consensus. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys 2022, pp. 34ā€“50. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gągol, A., Leśniak, D., Straszak, D., Świętek, M.: Aleph: efficient atomic broadcast in asynchronous networks with Byzantine nodes. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pp. 214ā€“228 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  7. LeMahieu, C.: Nano whitepaper (2022). Accessed Feb 2023

    Google Scholar 

  8. Leonardos, S., Monnot, B., Reijsbergen, D., Skoulakis, E., Piliouras, G.: Dynamical analysis of the EIP-1559 Ethereum fee market. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, AFT 2021, pp. 114ā€“126. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Miller, A., Xia, Y., Croman, K., Shi, E., Song, D.: The honey badger of BFT protocols. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2016, pp. 31ā€“42. Association for Computing Machinery (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. MĆ¼ller, S., Penzkofer, A., Polyanskii, N., Theis, J., Sanders, W., Moog, H.: Tangle 2.0 leaderless Nakamoto consensus on the heaviest DAG. IEEE Access 10, 105807ā€“105842 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roughgarden, T., Syrgkanis, V., Tardos, E.: The price of anarchy in auctions. J. Artif. Int. Res. 59(1), 59ā€“101 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Sompolinsky, Y., Lewenberg, Y., Zohar, A.: Spectre: a fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2016/1159 (2016). Accessed Feb 2023

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou, Q., Huang, H., Zheng, Z., Bian, J.: Solutions to scalability of blockchain: a survey. IEEE Access 8, 16440ā€“16455 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Vigneri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Ā© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Camargo, D., Vigneri, L., Cullen, A. (2023). Managing Write Access Without Token Fees in Leaderless DAG-Based Ledgers. In: Machado, J.M., et al. Blockchain and Applications, 5th International Congress. BLOCKCHAIN 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 778. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45155-3_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics