Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and 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 162 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 56 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 38 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 35 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 104 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 164 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 426 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 35 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Security, Latency, and Throughput of Proof-of-Work Nakamoto Consensus (2312.05506v5)

Published 9 Dec 2023 in cs.CR

Abstract: This paper investigates the fundamental trade-offs between block safety, confirmation latency, and transaction throughput of proof-of-work (PoW) longest-chain fork-choice protocols, also known as PoW Nakamoto consensus. New upper and lower bounds are derived for the probability of block safety violations as a function of honest and adversarial mining rates, a block propagation delay limit, and confirmation latency measured in both time and block depth. The results include the first non-trivial closed-form finite-latency bound applicable across all delays and mining rates up to the ultimate fault tolerance. Notably, the gap between these upper and lower bounds is narrower than previously established bounds for a wide range of parameters relevant to Bitcoin and its derivatives, including Litecoin and Dogecoin, as well as Ethereum Classic. Additionally, the study uncovers a fundamental trade-off between transaction throughput and confirmation latency, ultimately determined by the desired fault tolerance and the rate at which block propagation delay increases with block size.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (14)
  1. A. Dembo, S. Kannan, E. N. Tas, D. Tse, P. Viswanath, X. Wang, and O. Zeitouni, “Everything is a race and nakamoto always wins,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2020.
  2. P. Gaži, A. Kiayias, and A. Russell, “Tight consistency bounds for bitcoin,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’20, (New York, NY, USA), p. 819–838, Association for Computing Machinery, 2020.
  3. P. Gazi, L. Ren, and A. Russell, “Practical settlement bounds for proof-of-work blockchains,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’22, (New York, NY, USA), p. 1217–1230, Association for Computing Machinery, 2022.
  4. J. Li, D. Guo, and L. Ren, “Close latency-security trade-off for the nakamoto consensus,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, AFT ’21, (New York, NY, USA), p. 100–113, Association for Computing Machinery, 2021.
  5. D. Guo and L. Ren, “Bitcoin’s latency–security analysis made simple,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, Association for Computing Machinery, 2022.
  6. R. Pass, L. Seeman, and A. Shelat, “Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks,” in Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pp. 643–673, Springer, 2017.
  7. J. Fechner, B. Chandrasekaran, and M. X. Makkes, “Calibrating the performance and security of blockchains via information propagation delays: Revisiting an old approach with a new perspective,” in Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC ’22, (New York, NY, USA), p. 282–289, Association for Computing Machinery, 2022.
  8. M. Tran, I. Choi, G. J. Moon, A. V. Vu, and M. S. Kang, “A stealthier partitioning attack against bitcoin peer-to-peer network,” in 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 894–909, 2020.
  9. M. Saad, S. Chen, and D. Mohaisen, “Syncattack: Double-spending in bitcoin without mining power,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’21, (New York, NY, USA), p. 1668–1685, Association for Computing Machinery, 2021.
  10. C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer, “Information propagation in the bitcoin network,” in IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings, pp. 1–10, 2013.
  11. D. Kroese, “The difference of two renewal processes level crossing and the infimum,” Communications in Statistics. Stochastic Models, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 221–243, 1992.
  12. L. Zhang, T. Wang, and S. C. Liew, “Speeding up block propagation in bitcoin network: Uncoded and coded designs,” Comput. Netw., vol. 206, apr 2022.
  13. M. Grundmann, H. Amberg, M. Baumstark, and H. Hartenstein, “On the peer degree distribution of the bitcoin p2p network,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), 2022.
  14. J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos, “The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications,” in Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pp. 281–310, Springer, 2015.
Citations (2)

Summary

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

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

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

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

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

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

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 3 tweets and received 0 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: