Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 41 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 21 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 20 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 91 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 178 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 474 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

SyncPCN/PSyncPCN: Payment Channel Networks without Blockchain Synchrony (2207.11615v2)

Published 23 Jul 2022 in cs.CR and cs.DC

Abstract: Payment channel networks (PCNs) enhance the scalability of blockchains by allowing parties to conduct transactions off-chain, i.e, without broadcasting every transaction to all blockchain participants. To conduct transactions, a sender and a receiver can either establish a direct payment channel with a funding blockchain transaction or leverage existing channels in a multi-hop payment. The security of PCNs usually relies on the synchrony of the underlying blockchain, i.e., evidence of misbehavior needs to be published on the blockchain within a time limit. Alternative payment channel proposals that do not require blockchain synchrony rely on quorum certificates and use a committee to register the transactions of a channel. However, these proposals do not support multi-hop payments, a limitation we aim to overcome. In this paper, we demonstrate that it is in fact impossible to design a multi-hop payment protocol with both network asynchrony and faulty channels, i.e., channels that may not correctly follow the protocol. We then detail two committee-based multi-hop payment protocols that respectively assume synchronous communications and possibly faulty channels, or asynchronous communication and correct channels. The first protocol relies on possibly faulty committees instead of the blockchain to resolve channel disputes, and enforces privacy properties within a synchronous network. The second one relies on committees that contain at most f faulty members out of 3f+1 and successively delegate to each other the role of eventually completing a multi-hop payment. We show that both protocols satisfy the security requirements of a multi-hop payment and compare their communication complexity and latency.

Citations (6)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.