The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable
Abstract
The Bitcoin cryptocurrency records its transactions in a public log called the blockchain. Its security rests critically on the distributed protocol that maintains the blockchain, run by participants called miners. Conventional wisdom asserts that the mining protocol is incentive-compatible and secure against colluding minority groups, that is, it incentivizes miners to follow the protocol as prescribed. We show that the Bitcoin mining protocol is not incentive-compatible. We present an attack with which colluding miners' revenue is larger than their fair share. The attack can have significant consequences for Bitcoin: Rational miners will prefer to join the attackers, and the colluding group will increase in size until it becomes a majority. At this point, the Bitcoin system ceases to be a decentralized currency. Unless certain assumptions are made, selfish mining may be feasible for any coalition size of colluding miners. We propose a practical modification to the Bitcoin protocol that protects Bitcoin in the general case. It prohibits selfish mining by a coalition that command less than 1/4 of the resources. This threshold is lower than the wrongly assumed 1/2 bound, but better than the current reality where a coalition of any size can compromise the system.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Zerocoin: Anonymous Distributed E-Cash from Bitcoin
Miers, I., Garman, C., Green, M., & Rubin, A. D. (2013) · 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/sp.2013.34 · Cited by 983
Cited by
A survey of blockchain from the perspectives of applications, challenges, and opportunities
Monrat, A. A., Schelen, O., & Andersson, K. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2936094 · Cited by 1,077
Federated Learning With Blockchain for Autonomous Vehicles: Analysis and Design Challenges
Pokhrel, S. R., & Choi, J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2020.2990686 · Cited by 531
Blockchain's adoption in iot: the challenges, and a way forward
Makhdoom, I., Abolhasan, M., Abbas, H., & Ni, W. (2019) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2018.10.019 · Cited by 501
Sidechain technologies in blockchain networks: an examination and state-of-the-art review
Singh, A., Click, K., Parizi, R. M., Zhang, Q., Dehghantanha, A., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2020) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2019.102471 · Cited by 360
Blockchain for Internet of Energy management: Review, solutions, and challenges
Miglani, A., Kumar, N., Chamola, V., & Zeadally, S. (2020) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2020.01.014 · Cited by 346
Ma, M., Shi, G., & Li, F. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2904042 · Cited by 180
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
Blockchain in Internet-of-Things: Architecture, Applications and Research Directions
Ahmad, F., Ahmad, Z., Kerrache, C. A., Kurugollu, F., Adnane, A., & Barka, E. (2019) · 2019 International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCIS) · doi:10.1109/iccisci.2019.8716450 · Cited by 42
Corking by Forking: Vulnerability Analysis of Blockchain
Wang, S., Wang, C., & Hu, Q. (2019) · IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications · doi:10.1109/infocom.2019.8737490 · Cited by 39
Analysis of Blockchain Selfish Mining Attacks
Kędziora, M., Kozłowski, P., Szczepanik, M., & Jóźwiak, P. (2020) · Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30440-9_22 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Eyal, I., & Sirer, E. G.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2018-06-25
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 95-102
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2103863878
- Cited by
- 742
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 161.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.