Low powered blockchain consensus protocols based on consistent hash

Current blockchain consensus protocols have a triangle of contradictions in aspects of decentralization, security, and energy consumption, and cannot be synchronously optimized. We describe a design of two new blockchain consensus protocols, called “CHB-consensus” and “CHBD-consensus,” based on a consistent hash algorithm. Honest miners can fairly gain the opportunity to create blocks. They do not consume any extra computational power resources when creating new blocks, and such blocks can obtain the whole blockchain network to confirm consensus with fairness. However, malicious miners have to pay massive computational power resources for attacking the new block creation privilege or double-spending. Blockchain networks formed by CHB-consensus and CHBD-consensus are based on the same security assumption as that in Bitcoin systems, so they save a huge amount of power without sacrificing decentralization or security. We analyze possible attacks and give a rigorous but adjustable validation strategy. CHB-consensus and CHBD-consensus introduce a certification authority (CA) system, which does not have special management or control rights over blockchain networks or data structures, but carries the risk of privacy breaches depending on credibility and reliability of the CA system. Here, we analyze the robustness and energy consumption of CHB-consensus and CHBD-consensus, and demonstrate their advantages through theoretical derivation.

[1]  Peter Druschel,et al.  Peer-to-peer systems , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[2]  P. Giungato,et al.  Current Trends in Sustainability of Bitcoins and Related Blockchain Technology , 2017 .

[3]  John R. Douceur,et al.  The Sybil Attack , 2002, IPTPS.

[4]  Adam Back,et al.  Hashcash - A Denial of Service Counter-Measure , 2002 .

[5]  Harald Vranken,et al.  Sustainability of bitcoin and blockchains , 2017 .

[6]  Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin : A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System , 2009 .

[7]  Luca Veltri,et al.  Byzantine Generals Problem in the Light of P2P Computing , 2006, 2006 Third Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking & Services.

[8]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  The Weak Byzantine Generals Problem , 1983, JACM.

[9]  Jie Fan,et al.  Research on the Technologies of Byzantine System: Research on the Technologies of Byzantine System , 2014 .

[10]  Varghese S. Jacob,et al.  Energy Consumption – Bitcoin’s Achilles Heel , 2017 .

[11]  Sarunas Girdzijauskas,et al.  When Trust Saves Energy: A Reference Framework for Proof of Trust (PoT) Blockchains , 2018, WWW.

[12]  Karl J. O'Dwyer,et al.  Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint , 2014 .

[13]  Rüdiger Reischuk,et al.  A New Solution for the Byzantine Generals Problem , 1985, Inf. Control..

[14]  David R. Karger,et al.  Consistent hashing and random trees: distributed caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the World Wide Web , 1997, STOC '97.

[15]  Sunny King,et al.  PPCoin: Peer-to-Peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Stake , 2012 .

[16]  Miguel Oom Temudo de Castro,et al.  Practical Byzantine fault tolerance , 1999, OSDI '99.

[17]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  The Byzantine Generals Problem , 1982, TOPL.

[18]  Warren He,et al.  Proof of Luck: an Efficient Blockchain Consensus Protocol , 2016, SysTEX@Middleware.

[19]  Moni Naor,et al.  Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail , 1992, CRYPTO.