Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3589335.3651960acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Statistical Confidence in Mining Power Estimates for PoW Blockchains

Published: 13 May 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The security of blockchain systems depends on the distribution of mining power across participants. If sufficient mining power is controlled by one entity, they can force their own version of events. This may allow them to double spend coins, for example. For Proof of Work (PoW) blockchains, however, the distribution of mining power cannot be read directly from the blockchain and must instead be inferred from the number of blocks mined in a specific sample window. We introduce a framework to quantify this statistical uncertainty for the Nakamoto coefficient, which is a commonly-used measure of blockchain decentralization. We show that aggregating blocks over a day can lead to considerable uncertainty, with Bitcoin failing more than half the hypothesis tests (α=0.05) when using a daily granularity. For these reasons, we recommend that blocks are aggregated over a sample window of at least 7 days. Instead of reporting a single value, our approach produces a range of possible Nakamoto coefficient values that have statistical support at a particular significance level α.

Supplemental Material

MP4 File
Presentation vide
MP4 File
Supplemental video

References

[1]
Alireza Beikverdi and JooSeok Song. 2015. Trend of centralization in Bitcoin's distributed network. In 2015 IEEE/ACIS 16th international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking and parallel/distributed computing (SNPD). IEEE, IEEE Computer Society, 1730 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., USA, 1--6.
[2]
David Jean Biau, Brigitte M Jolles, and Raphaël Porcher. 2010. P value and the theory of hypothesis testing: an explanation for new researchers. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, Vol. 468, 3 (2010), 885--892.
[3]
Blockchain.com. 2024. Hashrate Distribution: An estimation of hashrate distribution amongst the largest mining pools. https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/pools
[4]
Carlo Campajola, Raffaele Cristodaro, Francesco Maria De Collibus, Tao Yan, Nicolo' Vallarano, and Claudio J. Tessone. 2023. The Evolution Of Centralisation on Cryptocurrency Platforms. arxiv: 2206.05081 [physics.soc-ph]
[5]
Sérgio Fernandes and Jorge Bernardino. 2015. What is BigQuery?. In Proceedings of the 19th International Database Engineering & Applications Symposium (Yokohama, Japan) (IDEAS '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 202--203. https://doi.org/10.1145/2790755.2790797
[6]
Robin Fritsch, Marino Müller, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2022. Analyzing Voting Power in Decentralized Governance: Who controls DAOs?arxiv: 2204.01176 [cs.CY]
[7]
Juan Garay, Aggelos Kiayias, and Nikos Leonardos. 2015. The Bitcoin Backbone Protocol: Analysis and Applications. In Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2015, Elisabeth Oswald and Marc Fischlin (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 281--310.
[8]
Dominic Grandjean, Lioba Heimbach, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2023. Ethereum Proof-of-Stake Consensus Layer: Participation and Decentralization. arxiv: 2306.10777 [cs.DC]
[9]
John PA Ioannidis. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, Vol. 2, 8 (2005), e124.
[10]
Johannes Rude Jensen, Victor von Wachter, and Omri Ross. 2021. How Decentralized is the Governance of Blockchain-based Finance: Empirical Evidence from four Governance Token Distributions. arxiv: 2102.10096 [q-fin.GN]
[11]
Bartosz Kusmierz and Roman Overko. 2022. How centralized is decentralized? Comparison of wealth distribution in coins and tokens. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems (COINS). IEEE Computer Society, 1730 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., USA, 1--6. https://doi.org/10.1109/COINS54846.2022.9854972
[12]
Chao Li, Balaji Palanisamy, Runhua Xu, and Li Duan. 2023. Cross-Consensus Measurement of Individual-level Decentralization in Blockchains. In 2023 IEEE 9th Intl Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud (BigDataSecurity), IEEE Intl Conference on High Performance and Smart Computing, (HPSC) and IEEE Intl Conference on Intelligent Data and Security (IDS). IEEE Computer Society, 1730 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., USA, 45--50. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigDataSecurity-HPSC-IDS58521.2023.00018
[13]
Jian-Hong Lin, Emiliano Marchese, Claudio J. Tessone, and Tiziano Squartini. 2022. The weighted Bitcoin Lightning Network. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 164 (2022), 112620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112620
[14]
Qinwei Lin, Chao Li, Xifeng Zhao, and Xianhai Chen. 2021. Measuring Decentralization in Bitcoin and Ethereum using Multiple Metrics and Granularities. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW). IEEE Computer Society, 1730 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., USA, 80--87. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDEW53142.2021.00022
[15]
Jingyu Liu, Lu Liu, Zijing Li, and Chao Li. 2023. DeMonitor: Monitoring Decentralization in Blockchains using BigQuery. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE Computer Society, 1730 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., USA, 1--2. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC56567.2023.10174900
[16]
Arvind Narayanan, Joseph Bonneau, Edward Felten, Andrew Miller, and Steven Goldfeder. 2016. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies: a comprehensive introduction. Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, NJ, USA.
[17]
Christina Ovezik, Dimitris Karakostas, and Aggelos Kiayias. 2024. SoK: A Stratified Approach to Blockchain Decentralization. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, International Financial Cryptography Association, Amsterdam, NL.
[18]
Matteo Romiti, Aljosha Judmayer, Alexei Zamyatin, and Bernhard Haslhofer. 2019. A Deep Dive into Bitcoin Mining Pools: An Empirical Analysis of Mining Shares. arxiv: 1905.05999 [cs.CR]
[19]
Balaji S. Srinivasan and Leland Lee. 2017. Quantifying Decentralization. Medium. https://news.earn.com/quantifying-decentralization-e39db233c28e Retrieved March 11, 2024 from
[20]
Eileen Tipoe and Ralf Becker. 2020. Measuring Inequality: Lorenz Curves and Gini Coefficients. Electric Book Works, Cape Town, South Africa. https://www.core-econ.org/doing-economics/book/text/05-02.html(visited 2024-03--11).
[21]
Liyi Zeng, Yang Chen, Shuo Chen, Xian Zhang, Zhongxin Guo, Wei Xu, and Thomas Moscibroda. 2021. Characterizing Ethereum's Mining Power Decentralization at a Deeper Level. In IEEE INFOCOM 2021 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE Computer Society, 1730 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., USA, 1--10. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM42981.2021.9488812
[22]
Rui Zhang, Rui Xue, and Ling Liu. 2019. Security and privacy on blockchain. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol. 52, 3 (2019), 1--34. io

Index Terms

  1. Statistical Confidence in Mining Power Estimates for PoW Blockchains

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WWW '24: Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024
      May 2024
      1928 pages
      ISBN:9798400701726
      DOI:10.1145/3589335
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 13 May 2024

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. 51% attack
      2. blockchain
      3. cryptocur- rency
      4. decentralization
      5. measurements
      6. nakamoto coefficient
      7. proof of work (pow)
      8. security

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      WWW '24
      Sponsor:
      WWW '24: The ACM Web Conference 2024
      May 13 - 17, 2024
      Singapore, Singapore

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 94
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)94
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21
      Reflects downloads up to 28 Nov 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media