Paper detail

Consistency of Proof-of-Stake Blockchains with Concurrent Honest Slot Leaders

We improve the fundamental security threshold of eventual consensus Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchain protocols under the longest-chain rule by showing, for the first time, the positive effect of rounds with concurrent honest leaders. Current security analyses reduce consistency to the dynamics of an abstract, round-based block creation process that is determined by three events associated with a round: (i) event $A$: at least one adversarial leader, (ii) event $S$: a single honest leader, and (iii) event $M$: multiple, but honest, leaders. We present an asymptotically optimal consistency analysis assuming that an honest round is more likely than an adversarial round (i.e., $\Pr[S] + \Pr[M] > \Pr[A]$); this threshold is optimal. This is a first in the literature and can be applied to both the simple synchronous communication as well as communication with bounded delays. In all existing consistency analyses, event $M$ is either penalized or treated neutrally. Specifically, the consistency analyses in Ouroboros Praos (Eurocrypt 2018) and Genesis (CCS 2018) assume that $\Pr[S] - \Pr[M] > \Pr[A]$; the analyses in Sleepy Consensus (Asiacrypt 2017) and Snow White (Fin. Crypto 2019) assume that $\Pr[S] > \Pr[A]$. Moreover, all existing analyses completely break down when $\Pr[S] < \Pr[A]$. These thresholds determine the critical trade-off between the honest majority, network delays, and consistency error. Our new results can be directly applied to improve the security guarantees of the existing protocols. We also provide an efficient algorithm to explicitly calculate these error probabilities in the synchronous setting. Furthermore, we complement these results by analyzing the setting where $S$ is rare, even allowing $\Pr[S] = 0$, under the added assumption that honest players adopt a consistent chain selection rule.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.