BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Christian Decker

Christian Decker contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Cryptography and Securityphysics.soc-phSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Centrality Analysis of the Lightning Network

Payment channel networks (PCNs) such as the Lightning Network offer an appealing solution to the scalability problem faced by many cryptocurrencies operating on a blockchain such as Bitcoin. However, PCNs also inherit the stringent dependability requirements of blockchain. In particular, in order to mitigate liquidity bottlenecks as well as on-path attacks, it is important that payment channel networks maintain a high degree of decentralization. Motivated by this requirement, we conduct an empirical centrality analysis of the popular Lightning Network, and in particular, the betweenness centrality distribution of the routing system. Based on our extensive data set (using several millions of channel update messages), we implemented a TimeMachine tool which enables us to study the network evolution over time. We find that although the network is generally fairly decentralized, a small number of nodes can attract a significant fraction of the transactions, introducing skew. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that over the last two years, the centrality has increased significantly, e.g., the inequality (measured by the Gini index) has increased by more than 10%.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Lightning Network: a second path towards centralisation of the Bitcoin economy

The Bitcoin Lightning Network (BLN), a so-called "second layer" payment protocol, was launched in 2018 to scale up the number of transactions between Bitcoin owners. In this paper, we analyse the structure of the BLN over a period of 18 months, ranging from 12th January 2018 to 17th July 2019. Here, we consider three representations of the BLN: the daily snapshot one, the weekly snapshot one and the daily-block snapshot one. By studying the topological properties of the three representations above, we find that the total volume of transacted bitcoins approximately grows as the square of the network size; however, despite the huge activity characterising the BLN, the bitcoins distribution is very unequal: the average Gini coefficient of the node strengths (computed across the entire history of the Bitcoin Lightning Network) is, in fact, ~0.88 causing the 10% (50%) of the nodes to hold the 80% (99%) of the bitcoins at stake in the BLN (on average, across the entire period). This concentration brings up the question of which minimalist network model allows us to explain the network topological structure. Like for other economic systems, we hypothesise that local properties of nodes, like the degree, ultimately determine part of its characteristics. Therefore, we have tested the goodness of the Undirected Binary Configuration Model (UBCM) in reproducing the structural features of the BLN: the UBCM recovers the disassortative and the hierarchical character of the BLN but underestimates the centrality of nodes; this suggests that the BLN is becoming an increasingly centralised network, more and more compatible with a core-periphery structure. Further inspection of the resilience of the BLN shows that removing hubs leads to the collapse of the network into many components, an evidence suggesting that this network may be a target for the so-called split attacks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Toward Active and Passive Confidentiality Attacks On Cryptocurrency Off-Chain Networks

Cryptocurrency off-chain networks such as Lightning (e.g., Bitcoin) or Raiden (e.g., Ethereum) aim to increase the scalability of traditional on-chain transactions. To support nodes in learning about possible paths to route their transactions, these networks need to provide gossip and probing mechanisms. This paper explores whether these mechanisms may be exploited to infer sensitive information about the flow of transactions, and eventually harm privacy. In particular, we identify two threats, related to an active and a passive adversary. The first is a probing attack: here the adversary aims to detect the maximum amount which is transferable in a given direction over a target channel by actively probing it and differentiating the response messages it receives. The second is a timing attack: the adversary discovers how close the destination of a routed payment actually is, by acting as a passive man-in-the middle and analyzing the time deltas between sent messages and their corresponding responses. We then analyze the limitations of these attacks and propose remediations for scenarios in which they are able to produce accurate results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access