Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proof-Carrying Smart Contracts

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 10958))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We propose a way to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the immutability of idealized smart contracts and the real-world need to update contracts to fix bugs and oversights. Our proposal is to raise the contract’s level of abstraction to guarantee a specification \(\varphi \) instead of a particular implementation of that specification. A combination of proof-carrying code and proof-aware consensus allows contract implementations to be updated as needed, but so as to guarantee that \(\varphi \) cannot be violated by any future upgrade.

We propose proof-carrying smart contracts (PCSCs), aiming to put formal correctness proofs of smart contracts on the chain. Proofs of correctness for a contract can be checked by validators, who can enforce the restriction that no update can violate \(\varphi \). We discuss some architectural and formal challenges, and include an example of how our approach could address the well-known vulnerabilities in the ERC20 token standard.

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.

    This unfortunately restricts the possible valid semantics of the ERC20 implementation, later in the paper we will propose yet a 3rd implementation that is thread safe without being subject to this restriction.

  2. 2.

    For the purposes of this paper, we assume that the compiler is able to translate proofs & invariants for the source language (e.g. Solidity) into proofs & invariants for the host language (e.g. EVM bytecode).

  3. 3.

    A dummy contract which always terminates with an exception should vacuously satisfy the specification, since, for example, under the Ethereum model of execution, a contract could run out of gas and terminate at any point anyway.

  4. 4.

    Generally-speaking, a parent contract can include arbitrary computation as long as it is accompanied by its own proof.

References

  1. Atzei, N., Bartoletti, M., Cimoli, T.: A survey of attacks on ethereum smart contracts (SoK). In: Maffei, M., Ryan, M. (eds.) POST 2017. LNCS, vol. 10204, pp. 164–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54455-6_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: a modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11804192_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: The spec# programming system: an overview. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 49–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30569-9_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bobot, F., Filliâtre, J.C., Marché, C., Melquiond, G., Paskevich, A.: The Why3 platform. http://why3.lri.fr/manual.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2018

  5. Daian, P., Breidenbach, L.: Parity proposals’ potential problems. http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/12/13/ether-resurrection/. Accessed 14 Jan 2018

  6. DAO: the DAO smart contract. Accessed 8 Feb 2017

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ethereum. https://github.com/ethereum/. Accessed 14 Jan 2018

  8. Filliâtre, J.-C., Paskevich, A.: Why3—where programs meet provers. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 125–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Grossman, S., et al.: Online detection of effectively callback free objects with applications to smart contracts. In: ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hicks, M., Nettles, S.: Dynamic software updating. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 27(6), 1049–1096 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1108970.1108971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hildenbrandt, E., et al.: KEVM: a complete semantics of the ethereum virtual machine. Technical report (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hirai, Y.: Defining the ethereum virtual machine for interactive theorem provers. In: Brenner, M., et al. (eds.) FC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10323, pp. 520–535. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Leroy, X., et al.: The CompCert verified compiler. Documentation and user’s manual, INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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. CCS 2016, pp. 254–269. ACM, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978309

  16. Necula, G.C.: Proof-carrying code. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. POPL 1997, pp. 106–119. ACM, New York (1997). https://doi.org/10.1145/263699.263712

  17. Sergey, I., Hobor, A.: A concurrent perspective on smart contracts. CoRR abs/1702.05511 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05511

  18. Sirer, E.G.: Parity’s Wallet Bug is not Alone (2017). https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-struts-statement-on-equifax. Accessed 05 Nov 2017

  19. Various: formal verification for solidity contracts. https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/3779/formal-verification-for-solidity-contracts. Accessed 14 Jul 2018

  20. Vladimirov, M., Khovratovich, D.: ERC20 API: an attack vector on approve/transferfrom methods. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLPtQxZu1UAvO9cZ1O2RPXBbT0mooh4DYKjA_jp-RLM/edit#heading=h.m9fhqynw2xvt. Accessed: 14 Jan 2018

  21. The Ethereum Wiki: ERC20 token standard. https://theethereum.wiki/w/index.php/ERC20_Token_Standard. Accessed 14 Jan 2018

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brown University, Providence, USA

    Thomas Dickerson, Maurice Herlihy & Vikram Saraph

  2. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, USA

    Paul Gazzillo & Eric Koskinen

Authors
  1. Thomas Dickerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Gazzillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maurice Herlihy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vikram Saraph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric Koskinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Gazzillo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    Aviv Zohar

  2. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Ittay Eyal

  3. University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Vanessa Teague

  4. Concordia University, Beaconsfield, QC, Canada

    Jeremy Clark

  5. Computer Science and Mathematics, Stirling University, Stirling, UK

    Andrea Bracciali

  6. Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Federico Pintore

  7. Department of Mathematics, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Massimiliano Sala

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 International Financial Cryptography Association

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Dickerson, T., Gazzillo, P., Herlihy, M., Saraph, V., Koskinen, E. (2019). Proof-Carrying Smart Contracts. In: Zohar, A., et al. Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10958. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58819-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58820-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation