Corking by Forking: Vulnerability Analysis of Blockchain
Abstract
The great market success of Blockchain makes it an extremely valuable target for attackers. A well-known attack in Blockchain is the forking attack, where divergent blockchains are produced for inserting some new features to facilitate security breaches. The state-of-the-art works mostly focus on how to detect attacks in real-time transactions, which is in hindsight and cannot deter the forking attack from the root. To take precautions, we employ the large deviation theory to study the vulnerability of blockchain networks incurred by intentional forks from a micro point of view, boosting forward-looking and strategic planning mechanisms for resisting the forking attack. Our study is fine-grained, because it offers not only the vulnerability probability of a blockchain network but also its decay speed, through which we find setting the parameter related to the robust level has more power than enhancing the computer power in speeding up the failure of attacks. This finding is valuable since it renders an opportunity to improve the robustness of a blockchain network in a cost-efficient way. Our analysis is complementary, since it studies both the impacts of the computational power as well as the number of confirmations on the vulnerability of a blockchain network, providing a theoretical basis to design reasonable schemes for invigorating a blockchain network from technical as well as managerial levels. Extensive experiments carried out on a large-scale cloud platform running the Ethereum protocol show the experimental and analytical results match well, verifying the effectiveness of our analysis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemPreprint
Nakamoto, S. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3440802 · Cited by 14,599 · see citing works
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemPreprint
Squarepants, S. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3977007 · Cited by 11,146 · see citing works
(2013) · Cited by 5,372 · see citing works
Introduction to Probability Models.
JOLLIFFE, F. R., & Ross, S. M. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983433 · Cited by 4,583 · see citing works
On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains
Gervais, A., Karame, G., Wüst, K., Glykantzis, V., Ritzdorf, H., & Čapkun, S. (2016) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/2976749.2978341 · Cited by 1,683 · see citing works
Eyal, I., & Sirer, E. G. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3212998 · Cited by 747 · see citing works
Eclipse attacks on Bitcoin's peer-to-peer network
Heilman, E., Kendler, A., Zohar, A., & Goldberg, S. (2015) · Cited by 577 · see citing works
Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin
Karame, G. O., Androulaki, E., & Capkun, S. (2012) · Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/2382196.2382292 · Cited by 538 · see citing works
Optimal Selfish Mining Strategies in Bitcoin
Sapirshtein, A., Sompolinsky, Y., & Zohar, A. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54970-4_30 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
Stubborn Mining: Generalizing Selfish Mining and Combining with an Eclipse Attack
Nayak, K., Kumar, S., Miller, A. E., & Shi, E. (2016) · IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/eurosp.2016.32 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Behaviors of susceptible-infected epidemics on scale-free networks with identical infectivity
Zhou, T., Liu, J.-G., Bai, W.-J., Chen, G., & Wang, B.-H. (2006) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.74.056109 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
The challenges of personal data markets and privacy
Spiekermann, S., Acquisti, A., Böhme, R., & Hui, K.-L. (2015) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0191-0 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Tampering with the Delivery of Blocks and Transactions in Bitcoin
Gervais, A., Ritzdorf, H., Karame, G., & Čapkun, S. (2015) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/2810103.2813655 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay
Göbel, J., Keeler, P., Krzesinski, A. E., & Taylor, P. G. (2016) · Performance Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.peva.2016.07.001 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Security Implications of Blockchain Cloud with Analysis of Block Withholding Attack
Tosh, D. K., Shetty, S. S., Liang, X., Kamhoua, C., Kwiat, K. A., & Njilla, L. (2017) · IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGrid) · doi:10.1109/ccgrid.2017.111 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Misbehavior in Bitcoin: A Study of Double-Spending and Accountability
Karame, G. O., Androulaki, E., Roeschlin, M., Gervais, A., & Čapkun, S. (2015) · ACM Transactions on Information and System Security · doi:10.1145/2732196 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Low-resource eclipse attacks on Ethereum’s peer-to-peer networkPreprint
Marcus, Y., Heilman, E., & Goldberg, S. (2020) · IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Ganesh, A. J., O’Connell, N., & Wischik, D. (2004) · Lecture notes in mathematics · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39889-9 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Publish or Perish: A Backward-Compatible Defense Against Selfish Mining in Bitcoin
Zhang, R., & Preneel, B. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52153-4_16 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Stochastic Models and Wide-Area Network Measurements for Blockchain Design and Analysis
Papadis, N., Borst, S. C., Walid, A., Grissa, M., & Tassiulas, L. (2018) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) · doi:10.1109/infocom.2018.8485982 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Double-spending prevention for Bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions
Pérez‐Solà, C., Delgado-Segura, S., Navarro‐Arribas, G., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Information Security · doi:10.1007/s10207-018-0422-4 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Double-Spending Detection for Fast Bitcoin Payment Based on Artificial Immune
Liu, Z., Zhao, H., Chen, W., et al. (2017) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-6893-5_10 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Double-spending Prevention for Bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions.
Pérez‐Solà, C., Delgado-Segura, S., Navarro‐Arribas, G., et al. (2017) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Federated learning meets blockchain in edge computing: Opportunities and challenges
Nguyen, D. C., Ding, M., Pham, Q.-V., Pathirana, P. N., Le, L. B., Seneviratne, A., Li, J., Niyato, D., & Poor, H. V. (2021) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2021.3072611 · Cited by 661 · see citing works
Rodríguez-Barroso, N., Jiménez-López, D., Luzón, M. V., Herrera, F., & Martínez-Cámara, E. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2022.09.011 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
A Decentralized Federated Learning Approach for Connected Autonomous Vehicles
Pokhrel, S. R., & Choi, J. (2020) · 2020 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW) · doi:10.1109/wcncw48565.2020.9124733 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, S., Wang, C., & Hu, Q.
- Affiliations
- Beijing Normal University (CN)
- George Washington University (US)
- Venue
- IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-04
- Pages
- 829-837
- OpenAlex
- W2920779589
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12
- FWCI
- 5.58
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
- Keywords
- blockchain security, large deviations, attack resistance, computational power, Ethereum
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
