Most popular blockchain solutions, like Bitcoin, rely on proof-of-work, guaranteeing that the output of the consensus is agreed upon with high probability. However, this probability depends on the delivery of messages and that the computational power of the system is sufficiently scattered among pools of nodes in the network so that no pool can mine more blocks faster than the crowd. New approaches, like Ethereum, generalise the proof-of-work approach by letting individuals deploy their own private blockchain with high transaction throughput. As companies are starting to deploy private chains, it has become crucial to better understand the guarantees blockchains offer in such a small and controlled environment. In this paper, we present the , an execution that we experienced when building our private chain at NICTA Data61. Even though this anomaly has never been acknowledged before, it may translate into dramatic consequences for the user of blockchains. Named after the infamous Paxos anomaly, this anomaly makes dependent transactions, like "Bob sends money to Carole after he received money from Alice" impossible. This anomaly relies on the fact that existing blockchains do not ensure consensus safety deterministically: there is no way for Bob to make sure that Alice actually sent him coins without Bob using an external mechanism, like converting these coins into a fiat currency that allows him to withdraw. We also explore smart contracts as a potential alternative to transactions in order to freeze coins, and show implementations of smart contract that can suffer from the Blockchain anomaly and others that may cope with it.
Tendermint http: tendermint.com . is a blockchain system building upon proof-of-stake. It is known to favour consistency over availability, taking the opposite view of Casper, the proof-of-stake alternative to the Ghost protocol. The Tendermint consensus protocol builds upon the Byzantine agreement protocol with authentication @cite_1 and requires strictly more than two third of correct processes to ensure agreement and validity deterministically and to guarantee termination when the network stabilises and messages between non-faulty nodes get delivered.
@cite_1
2003214215
A blockchain is a distributed ledger for recording transactions, maintained by many nodes without central authority through a distributed cryptographic protocol. All nodes validate the information to be appended to the blockchain, and a consensus protocol ensures that the nodes agree on a unique order in which entries are appended. Consensus protocols for tolerating Byzantine faults have received renewed attention because they also address blockchain systems. This work discusses the process of assessing and gaining confidence in the resilience of a consensus protocols exposed to faults and adversarial nodes. We advocate to follow the established practice in cryptography and computer security, relying on public reviews, detailed models, and formal proofs; the designers of several practical systems appear to be unaware of this. Moreover, we review the consensus protocols in some prominent permissioned blockchain platforms with respect to their fault models and resilience against attacks. The protocol comparison covers Hyperledger Fabric, Tendermint, Symbiont, R3 Corda, Iroha, Kadena, Chain, Quorum, MultiChain, Sawtooth Lake, Ripple, Stellar, and IOTA.