Analysis of Hashrate-Based Double Spending

By Meni Rosenfeld. arXiv.org, 2014

451 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Bitcoin is the world's first decentralized digital currency. Its main technical innovation is the use of a blockchain and hash-based proof of work to synchronize transactions and prevent double-spending the currency. While the qualitative nature of this system is well understood, there is widespread confusion about its quantitative aspects and how they relate to attack vectors and their countermeasures. In this paper we take a look at the stochastic processes underlying typical attacks and their resulting probabilities of success.

Subfields: Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df2c5a9458c6f8364036b3970bb13160c1a3d5d9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Assessing Blockchain Consensus and Security Mechanisms against the 51% Attack (2019, background): “According to Rosenfeld, in any occasion, when an adversary owns 51% of the network hash, they will always succeed regardless of the enforced delay [12].”
Price Fluctuations and the Use of Bitcoin: An Empirical Inquiry (2015, unknown): “In the “51 percent Attack” scenario, a miner (or pool of miners) that obtains more than 50 percent of the computing power of the system would be able to change the current consensus over the operation of the currency and, as a result, enable double-spending or multiple use of their coins [119].”
Secure High-Rate Transaction Processing in Bitcoin (2015, methodology): “9 Previous work, such as [12, 16], considered simpler policies that did not take elapsed time into account.”
Inclusive Block Chain Protocols (2015, methodology): “The original security analysis of Satoshi ([9]), as well as analysis done by others [11, 12], has considered the probability of a successful double-spend attack under the regular non-inclusive scheme.”
Centrally Banked Cryptocurrencies (2015, background): “Johnson et al. [10] and Laszka et al. [14] demonstrated that in fact some participants might be incentivized to engage in denialof-service attacks against each other. Karame et al. [11] and Rosenfeld [25] consider how an adversary might take advantage of both mining power and the network topology to”
Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing Attacks on Cryptocurrencies (2016, methodology): “We demonstrate the feasibility of each attack against the deployed Bitcoin software.”
A Survey on Security and Privacy Issues of Bitcoin (2017, background): “• Fastness: Bitcoin PoW is designed to validate a new block on average every 10 minutes, and it is recommended to wait for six confirmations before accepting a transaction [186], which makes it impractical for many real-world applications (e.”
Cryptocurrencies Without Proof of Work (2014, background): “ the assumption that the majority of the PoW mining power follows the Bitcoin protocol, the users can become increasingly condent that the payment transactions that they receive will not be reversed [9,14,18]. By means of the PoW mechanism, each miner depletes physical scarce resources in the form o”
SPECTRE: A Fast and Scalable Cryptocurrency Protocol (2016, background): “In essence, fpost mine is an adaptation of a formula from [17].”
A Fast and Scalable Payment Network with Bitcoin Duplex Micropayment Channels (2015, background): “The slow confirmation also prevents a number of real-life uses of Bitcoin, as fast payment can be double-spent and not be detected for some time [3,10,13].”