Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Using the Randomized Solution of the Dining Philosophers Problem to Prevent the Bitcoin Majority Attack


(*) Corresponding author


Authors' affiliations


DOI: https://doi.org/10.15866/irece.v9i6.15510

Abstract


Bitcoin has been burgeoning since its inception and has become the most successful currency in the crypto-currency market. Despite some unexpected fluctuations in its value, Bitcoin continues to be the most used and spread crypto-currency in the world. This success is due, to some extent, to its security. This security is built over many features for different assets, such as the hashing functions for addresses, the elliptic curve digital signature (ECDSA) for transactions, the elliptic curve discreet logarithm for private keys generation, the difficulty for the block mining process, and the proof-of-work as a required condition to add new blocks to the Blockchain. Despite the embedded security features, Bitcoin is still vulnerable to the majority attack, in which a mining pool gaining most of the network hashing rate could temper with the Blockchain. This paper suggests a way to prevent this issue using the randomized solution of the dining philosophers’ problem. This approach would deny to any super-pool the ability to monopolize the mining process if it is implemented in the Bitcoin system.
Copyright © 2018 Praise Worthy Prize - All rights reserved.

Keywords


Bitcoin; Difficulty; Dining Philosophers’ Problem; Security; Majority Attack

Full Text:

PDF


References


Coin market capitalization. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts. Accessed on December 26th, 2017.

Certicom Research. Standards for Efficient Cryptography. SEC 2: Recommended Elliptic Curve Domain Parameters. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.secg.org/sec2-v2.pdf.

Brito, J. and Van Valkenburgh, P. Bitcoin: Risk Factors for Insurance. https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/library/technology/bitcoin

Bitcoin 51% attack, https://Bitcoin.org/en, accessed on June 6th, 2018

Ghassan Karame, Elli Androulaki, Srdjan Capkun, Two Bitcoins at the Price of One? Double-Spending Attacks on Fast Payments in Bitcoin. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2012: 248 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2382196.2382292

Meni Rosenfeld, Analysis of Hashrate-Based Double Spending. CoRR abs/1402.2009 (2014)

Iuon-Chang Lin, Tzu-Chun Liao, A Survey of Blockchain Security Issues and Challenges. I. J. Network Security 19(5): 653-659 (2017).

Martijn Bastiaan, Preventing the 51%-Attack: a Stochastic Analysis of Two Phase Proof of Work in Bitcoin (2015). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0336/6d1fda3b24651c71ec6ce21bb88f34872e40.pdf, accessed on January 4th, 2018.

Ittay Eyal, Emin Gün Sirer, Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Commun. ACM 61(7): 95-102 (2018).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3212998

Arthur Gervais, Hubert Ritzdorf, GhassanKarame, SrdjanCapkun: Tampering with the Delivery of Blocks and Transactions in Bitcoin. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security 2015: 692-705.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813655

Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, Aviv Zohar: Optimal Selfish Mining Strategies in Bitcoin. CoRR abs/1507.06183 (2015).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54970-4_30

Zhenzhen Jiao, Rui Tian, Dezhong Shang and Hui Ding. Bicomp: A Bilayer Scalable Nakamoto Consensus Protocol, CoRR, 2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01593.

Rui Tian, Wei Gong:Resisting Selfish Mining Attacks in the Bicomp. CoRR abs/1809.06289 (2018).

Jaewon Bae, HyukLim:Random Mining Group Selection to Prevent 51% Attacks on Bitcoin. DSN Workshops 2018: 81-82
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/dsn-w.2018.00040

Bitcoin Difficulty. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty, accessed on January 2nd, 2018.

Bitcoin Difficulty and hashe rate, retrieved from http://blockchain.info, accessed on February 3rd, 2018.

June Ma Joshua S. GansRabeeTourky, Market Structure In Bitcoin Mining, 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w24242

Hashrate Distribution, https://blockchain.info/pools, accessed on June 6th, 2018

Joseph Bonneau, Andrew Miller, Jeremy Clark, Arvind Narayanan, Joshua A. Kroll, Edward W. Felten, SoK: Research Perspectives and Challenges for Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015: 104-121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/sp.2015.14

Dining philosophers problem, https://www.studytonight.com/operating-system/dining-philosophers-problem, accessed on June 7th, 2018

Deepshikha Bhargava; Sonali Vyas Agent based solution for dining philosophers’ problem, 2017 International Conference on Infocom Technologies and Unmanned Systems (Trends and Future Directions) (ICTUS), 18-20 Dec. 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ictus.2017.8286072

Philosophers at a table, http://qstuff.blogspot.com/2007/01/philosophers-at-table.html, accessed on 28th May 2018.

Dining philosophers problem, http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/opsys/notes/philos.html

Dining Philosophers problem deadlock, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ruovgwXyYs

M. Chandy and J. MISRA, The drinking Philosophers Problem, 1984.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1780.1804

Dining philosophers problem Dijkstra's solution, https://gist.github.com/glts/0bb56d89e7d4597cd4ec, accessed on June 8th, 2018

Prism model checker, http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/tutorial/phil.php

Prism, http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/, accessed on June 8th, 2018

Dining philosophers’ problem solution, adapted from http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/casestudies/phil.php, accessed on June 8th, 2018

Dining philosophers’ problem solution, http://www.baeldung.com/java-dining-philoshophers, accessed on June 9th, 2018


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Please send any question about this web site to info@praiseworthyprize.com
Copyright © 2005-2024 Praise Worthy Prize