Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 243 references

Deconstructing Blockchains: A Comprehensive Survey on Consensus, Membership and Structure

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that any blockchain can be understood as a combination of three components: membership selection, consensus mechanism, and structure.

desk verdict A useful and mostly accurate blockchain survey whose three-component framework is genuinely helpful, but the completeness claim should be softened to 'most systems' given the paper's own ancillary-components section. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08316 v1 pith:7LCPMKKD submitted 2019-08-22 cs.DC

Christopher Natoli , Jiangshan Yu , Vincent Gramoli , Paulo Esteves-Verissimo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords blockchainconsensusmembershipselectionstructuredistributedledgerByzantinefaulttoleranceproof-of-workproof-of-stake
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to tame the growing complexity of blockchain designs by decomposing every known system into three critical components: membership selection, which decides the committee of nodes that participate; consensus mechanism, which decides the next block; and structure, which organizes the data. It then builds an evaluation framework around system models, desired properties, and analysis criteria, and uses that framework to classify leading proposals and the attacks against them. If the decomposition holds, it gives a common language for comparing blockchains and for designing new systems by mixing components in new combinations. The practical payoff would be clearer analysis of future proposals and an organized map of the current landscape.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decomposition itself: membership selection determines the committee of nodes that runs the consensus, consensus mechanism decides the block to append, and structure represents how the ledger data is organized. The evaluation framework supplies the criteria that make the decomposition operational: network synchrony, online presence, adversary threshold measured in computational power, stake, space, or traditional Byzantine faults, and trust assumptions, together with desired properties such as agreement, termination, validity, and total-order prefix. The classification tables and generic chart for membership selection categories carry the argument by converting a sprawling design space into a small set of dimensions on which systems can be compared.

What would settle it

Find one deployed or formally specified blockchain that cannot be placed in the survey's classification without a forced choice that obscures a security-relevant property, for example a system whose liveness depends on transaction-level mempool ordering inside a block, and show that two systems in the same three-way cell have different safety or liveness guarantees.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the diverse field of blockchains can be usefully characterized by three decoupled components, and that these three components are the right parameters for evaluation and comparison. The paper classifies membership selection into work-, stake-, capacity-, authority-, hardware-, and location-based variants; consensus into Nakamoto-style probabilistic protocols and BFT-style deterministic protocols; and structure into single chains, parallel chains, directed acyclic graphs, and block lattices. It claims to be the first to classify blockchains by this three-way decomposition, and it provides tables and charts that map leading systems onto these categories together with their system models, properties, and achieved guarantees.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that membership selection, consensus mechanism, and structure are the three critical components whose decomposition is sufficient to compare and classify all known blockchain systems; the paper itself concedes that other components such as cryptography, internal storage, and virtual machines also heavily shape design.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New blockchain proposals can be classified and compared along the three axes of membership selection, consensus mechanism, and structure, making their design choices explicit.
  • System designers can deliberately combine components from different categories, revealing novel coherent combinations rather than starting from a single template.
  • Attacks can be organized by which component they exploit, such as mining-power attacks targeting membership selection or long-range attacks targeting consensus assumptions, giving a structured way to reason about defenses.
  • The framework provides a checklist for reading whitepapers that lack formal detail, since each system can be described by its choices on the three axes and the assumptions those choices entail.
  • Scalability and security trade-offs become visible as interactions between components, for example the pairing of PoW-based membership selection with BFT consensus and parallel-chain structures in systems like ByzCoin and RepuCoin.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the same three-axis decomposition could be extended to sharding and cross-chain systems, where membership selection per shard and structure between shards become natural parameters, a direction the paper only sketches in its future outlook.
  • Editorial inference: the classification implies a design space of membership-consensus-structure triples, so unexplored combinations may yield protocols with properties not yet seen; testing such combinations would be a direct extension of the survey.
  • Editorial inference: the attack taxonomy suggests a unified threat model where each attack is tied to the violation of one component's assumption, which could be tested by checking whether every known blockchain attack fits at least one of the paper's three attack categories.
  • Editorial inference: if a counterexample arises in which two systems classified identically on all three axes have materially different safety or liveness behavior, the framework would likely need a fourth axis such as transaction semantics or execution environment, as the paper's own discussion of ancillary components anticipates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a survey of blockchain systems organized around a three-component decomposition: membership selection, consensus mechanism, and structure. It proposes an evaluation framework based on system models, desired properties, and analysis criteria, applies it to classify membership and consensus mechanisms, reviews blockchain structures, and catalogs attacks on these components. The paper claims to be the first to classify blockchains along these three axes and argues that the framework helps tame the complexity of the current blockchain ecosystem.

Significance. Should the three-component decomposition be accepted as an organizing framework, the survey would be a useful entry point: it covers a wide range of PoW/PoS/TEE-based membership mechanisms, BFT and Nakamoto-style consensus, structural variants, and attacks, with convenient summary tables. The paper's self-described novelty is plausible in its combination of the three axes, even though layered decompositions exist, e.g., the blockchain consensus layer of Abraham and Malkhi. However, the advertised completeness of the decomposition is not established and is contradicted by the paper's own discussion, so the significance depends on re-scoping the claim to a useful partial decomposition rather than a complete deconstruction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §I, §IX, §VIII-E] The completeness claim that anchors the paper's novelty is internally inconsistent. The abstract says the three components are common to all known systems, while §I says common to most known systems, and §IX calls the decomposition a set of 'simple but complete critical components.' Yet §VIII-E explicitly identifies cryptography, internal structures/storage, and virtual machines/platforms as components that 'heavily contribute and influence the design and operation' of blockchains. For systems such as Zcash and Monero the primary differentiators are transaction-privacy cryptography, and for Ethereum the EVM execution model; the three-component taxonomy does not represent these. Since the stated novelty of the paper is precisely this decomposition, the overstatement is load-bearing. The authors should either argue that the ancillary components are subordinate to or derivable from the three named ones, or rephrase the claims as an important but partial organizing framework.
  2. [§VI and §VIII-B/C] The evaluation framework is applied unevenly across the three components. Membership selection and consensus receive comparative tables (Tables I and III) using the criteria of §III, whereas the structure component is covered only by short narrative descriptions in §VI and by qualitative remarks in §VIII-B and §VIII-C. Given that the paper's contribution is explicitly a tripartite decomposition with 'an evaluation framework ... using the decoupled components as parameters,' the absence of an equally systematic treatment of structure makes the framework incomplete as presented. At minimum, the paper should state why structure is handled only qualitatively, or add a summary table for structure along the same dimensions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-A.1.1] The description of Bitcoin mining says the input is 'the combination of the nonce and the new block hash'; the block hash is the output of the hash, not an input, so this should be phrased as hashing the block header (which includes the nonce, the previous block hash, and the Merkle root).
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is not legible in the provided version; a higher-resolution or vector version with readable labels is needed if it is meant to give the promised 'clear and unique landscape of blockchains.'
  3. [Tables IV–VI] The attack tables would be easier to use if each row explicitly cited the paper or source that introduced the attack, rather than relying on citations only in the prose sections.
  4. [§V-C.1] The description of PBFT would be more self-contained if it explained why 3f+1 replicas are needed and what role the view-change timers play, since these points are used later in the discussion of leader-based BFT blockchains.
  5. [§VIII-G] The statement that 'currently, all mainstream blockchains are PoW-based' should be qualified with a date or a phrase such as 'at the time of writing,' since the claim was already becoming less accurate during the period covered by the survey.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's three-component taxonomy is a stated organizing assumption, not a result derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a survey and taxonomy, not a derivation chain. Its central contribution is a decomposition of blockchains into membership selection, consensus mechanism, and structure, followed by a comparative analysis of known systems under that framework. The decomposition is introduced as a definitional framing in Section I ('the deconstruction of the blockchain into three simple, critical components common to most known systems: membership selection, consensus mechanism, and structure') and then applied uniformly to external and self-authored systems. There is no fitted parameter, no predicted quantity, and no formal theorem whose conclusion is equivalent to its premises. The paper does cite several works by its own authors (e.g., RepuCoin [221], RedBelly/DBFT [59,60], and Attack of the Clones [75]), but these citations are descriptive uses for particular systems or attacks and are not load-bearing for the framework itself; removing them would not change the decomposition or the evaluation criteria. The abstract and introduction also claim the three components are 'common to all known systems' while Section VIII-E lists other components, such as cryptography and virtual machines, as also heavily influencing blockchain design. That is a potential scope or consistency concern, but it is a correctness issue about the completeness of the taxonomy, not a circularity: the survey does not define membership selection, consensus, or structure in terms of the conclusions it draws, nor does it present a fitted input as a prediction. No specific equation, construction, or cited uniqueness theorem makes the paper's central claim reduce to its own inputs. Therefore, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no free parameters and no new postulated entities. Its only foundational assumption is that the three components are sufficient for analysis, which is stated without proof and partially contradicted by the paper's own acknowledgement of additional components.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Blockchains can be fully characterized by three components: membership selection, consensus mechanism, and structure.
    The paper postulates this decomposition in the Introduction (Section I) and uses it as the basis for the whole survey. The completeness of this decomposition is asserted, not derived; Section VIII-E itself admits other components such as cryptography and virtual machines also shape blockchain design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deconstructing Blockchains: A Comprehensive Survey on Consensus, Membership and Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LCPMKKD

@misc{pith2026190808316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deconstructing Blockchains: A Comprehensive Survey on Consensus, Membership and Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LCPMKKD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08316}
}
read the original abstract

It is no exaggeration to say that since the introduction of Bitcoin, blockchains have become a disruptive technology that has shaken the world. However, the rising popularity of the paradigm has led to a flurry of proposals addressing variations and/or trying to solve problems stemming from the initial specification. This added considerable complexity to the current blockchain ecosystems, amplified by the absence of detail in many accompanying blockchain whitepapers. Through this paper, we set out to explain blockchains in a simple way, taming that complexity through the deconstruction of the blockchain into three simple, critical components common to all known systems: membership selection, consensus mechanism and structure. We propose an evaluation framework with insight into system models, desired properties and analysis criteria, using the decoupled components as criteria. We use this framework to provide clear and intuitive overviews of the design principles behind the analyzed systems and the properties achieved. We hope our effort will help clarifying the current state of blockchain proposals and provide directions to the analysis of future proposals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08316 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The blockchain landscape. consensus mechanisms based on their properties. However, no other work has deconstructed the blockchain into these unique components and analysed all three. While existing work provides good analysis of specific sets of the properties of blockchains, it remained challenging, even for the educated but non-expert readers to get a thorough and comparative picture of the design principles of di… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proof-of-Work flow. • Validity: If all correct nodes propose a valid transaction before starting a consensus instance i, then the block decided in i is not empty. 2) Blockchain State Properties The blockchain state provides the foundation for the way transaction finality is interpreted and how state transitions are effected. However, both properties may not be observed at the same time. • Total Order Prefix: A block… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proof-of-Stake flow. such an attack, designs include punishments that result in asset loss upon detection of a stakeholder’s malicious behavior. The Proof-of-Stake core concept has been adapted into a number of different membership selection attributes. The goal of the membership selection is to filter the nodes to form a committee to participate in consensus, and can assign a weight to the node’s vote proportional … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Proof-of-Authority flow. Delegates for specified intervals. In some implementations, such as Lisk [129], the nodes are assigned a voting weight proportional to the amount of coins held. The Delegates are responsible for block production in the entire system, forming th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proof-of-Capacity flow. D. Proof-of-Capacity (PoC) Similar to the motivation behind Proof-of-Stake, Proof-of￾Capacity aims to reduce the amount of wasted resources on the blockchain by utilizing the resources that would be used for block production. As mentioned previo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TEE-based flow. To achieve a successful distributed archive, the system needs to incentivize storing files locally, away from cloud-based solutions. Proof-of-Retrievability employs this by requiring the consensus member to create a block through local random access to …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Proof-of-Location flow. 2) Proof-of-Luck As an alternative method, Proof-of-Luck [145] proposes a similar concept in which nodes perform computation inside a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), such as Intel’s SGX, to generate a random winner for block proposal. The g…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bitcoin-NG Block Overview 2) ComChain ComChain [209], the “Community Blockchain”, proposes the configuration block, a new block type that defines a subset of nodes chosen to form the next consensus committee. When a new consensus committee is being proposed, a configur…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Community Blockchain (ComChain) structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ByzCoin Microblock and Keyblock structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fruitchains Structure 2) ByzCoin ByzCoin [120], inspired by Bitcoin-NG [84], provides a new structure for the blockchain to improve transaction through￾put by decoupling the transactions from the block creation. Unlike Bitcoin-NG, ByzCoin separated the microblocks and…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: HashGraph Structure. An example round of communication and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Beacon Chain as adopted by Ethereum Serenity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Block Lattice example execution and structure overview. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: , stores transactions as vertices and requires each vertex to have an edge between two (or more) previous transactions. This forms the directed structure and the edges constitute to the validity of the transactions. The transactions are gossiped through the network an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

243 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AntMiner R4

    “AntMiner R4.” [Online]. Available: https:// asicminermarket.com/product/antminer-r4-mute-8ths/

  2. [2]

    Bitshares

    “Bitshares.” [Online]. Available: https://bitshares.org

  3. [3]

    Cardano

    “Cardano.” [Online]. Available: https://www.cardano. org/en/home/

  4. [4]

    Available: https://www.dash.org/

    “Dash.” [Online]. Available: https://www.dash.org/

  5. [5]

    Dogecoin

    “Dogecoin.” [Online]. Available: https://dogecoin.com/

  6. [6]

    Available: https://eos.io

    “EOS.” [Online]. Available: https://eos.io

  7. [7]

    Ledger Wallet

    “Ledger Wallet.” [Online]. Available: https://www. ledger.com

  8. [8]

    Available: https://lisk.io/

    “Lisk.” [Online]. Available: https://lisk.io/

Show all 243 references
  1. [9]

    Available: https://neo.org/

    “Neo.” [Online]. Available: https://neo.org/

  2. [10]

    Available: https://ripple.com/

    “Ripple.” [Online]. Available: https://ripple.com/

  3. [11]

    Available: https://steem.io/

    “Steem.” [Online]. Available: https://steem.io/

  4. [12]

    Trezor hardware wallet

    “Trezor hardware wallet.” [Online]. Available: https: //trezor.io

  5. [13]

    Verge currency

    “Verge currency.” [Online]. Available: https: //vergecurrency.com/

  6. [14]

    Waves platform

    “Waves platform.” [Online]. Available: https: //wavesplatform.com/

  7. [15]

    Web Assembly

    “Web Assembly.” [Online]. Available: https: //webassembly.org

  8. [16]

    Raiden Network Overview,

    “Raiden Network Overview,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://raiden.network/faq.html

    2015

  9. [17]

    Moderately hard, memory-bound functions,

    M. Abadi, M. Burrows, and T. Wobber, “Moderately hard, memory-bound functions,” in Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2003, San Diego, California, USA , 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    The blockchain consensus layer and BFT,

    I. Abraham and D. Malkhi, “The blockchain consensus layer and BFT,” Bulletin of the EATCS , vol. 123,

  11. [19]

    Solida: A blockchain protocol based on reconfigurable byzantine consensus,

    I. Abraham, D. Malkhi, K. Nayak, L. Ren, and A. Spiegelman, “Solida: A blockchain protocol based on reconfigurable byzantine consensus,” in 21st In- ternational Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems, OPODIS 2017, Lisbon, Portugal, December 18-20, 2017, 2017, pp. 25:1–25:19

    2017

  12. [20]

    PBFT vs proof-of- authority: Applying the CAP theorem to permissioned blockchain,

    S. D. Angelis, L. Aniello, R. Baldoni, F. Lombardi, A. Margheri, and V . Sassone, “PBFT vs proof-of- authority: Applying the CAP theorem to permissioned blockchain,” in Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Cyber Security, Milan, Italy, February 6th - to - 9th, 2018....

    2018

  13. [21]

    Hijack- ing Bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies,

    M. Apostolaki, A. Zohar, and L. Vanbever, “Hijack- ing Bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies,” in 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 375–392

    2017

  14. [22]

    Ripple: Overview and outlook,

    F. Armknecht, G. O. Karame, A. Mandal, F. Youssef, and E. Zenner, “Ripple: Overview and outlook,” in International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing. Springer, 2015, pp. 163–180

    2015

  15. [23]

    Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains,

    A. Back, M. Corallo, L. Dashjr, M. Friedenbach, G. Maxwell, A. Miller, A. Poelstra, J. Tim ´on, and P. Wuille, “Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains,” http://www.opensciencereview. com/papers/123/enablingblockchain-innovations-with- pegged-sidechains, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Bitcoin block withhold- ing attack: Analysis and mitigation,

    S. Bag, S. Ruj, and K. Sakurai, “Bitcoin block withhold- ing attack: Analysis and mitigation,” IEEE Transactions 37 on Information Forensics and Security , vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1967–1978, 2017

    1967

  17. [25]

    The swirlds hashgraph consensus algorithm: Fair, fast, Byzantine fault tolerance,

    L. Baird, “The swirlds hashgraph consensus algorithm: Fair, fast, Byzantine fault tolerance,”

  18. [26]

    Consensus in the age of blockchains,

    S. Bano, A. Sonnino, M. Al-Bassam, S. Azouvi, P. McCorry, S. Meiklejohn, and G. Danezis, “Consensus in the age of blockchains,” CoRR, vol. abs/1711.03936,

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    State machine replication in the libra blockchain,

    M. Baudet, A. Ching, A. Chursin, G. Danezis, F. Garillot, Z. Li, D. Malkhi, O. Naor, D. Perelman, and A. Sonnino, “State machine replication in the libra blockchain,” 2019. [On- line]. Available: https://developers.libra.org/docs/state- machine-replication-paper

    2019

  20. [28]

    Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake [Extended Abstract],

    I. Bentov, C. Lee, A. Mizrahi, and M. Rosenfeld, “Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake [Extended Abstract],” SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 34–37, 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/2695533.2695545

    2014

  21. [29]

    Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1711

    [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1711. 03936

  22. [30]

    Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake,

    ——, “Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake,” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive , vol. 2016, p. 919,

    2016

  23. [31]

    Equihash: Asym- metric Proof-of-Work Based on the Generalized Birth- day Problem,

    A. Biryukov and D. Khovratovich, “Equihash: Asym- metric Proof-of-Work Based on the Generalized Birth- day Problem,” in 23nd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2016, San Diego, California, USA, February 21-24, 2016 , 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    The sleepy model of consensus,

    I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi, “The sleepy model of consensus,” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive , vol. 2016, p. 918, 2016. [Online]. Available: http: //eprint.iacr.org/2016/918

    2016

  25. [33]

    Bitcoin Wiki: Difficulty,

    “Bitcoin Wiki: Difficulty,” 2018, https://en.bitcoin.it/ wiki/Difficulty

    2018

  26. [34]

    Available: http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/ 919

    [Online]. Available: http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/ 919

    2016

  27. [35]

    Delegated proof of stake,

    ——, “Delegated proof of stake,” 2013-2017. [Online]. Available: http://docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/dpos.html

    2013

  28. [36]

    Bitcoin Core 0.11 Data Storage,

    Bitcoin, “Bitcoin Core 0.11 Data Storage,” 2016, updated January 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin Core 0.11 (ch 2): Data Storage#The UTXO set .28chainstate leveldb.29

    2016

  29. [37]

    Hashrate distribution,

    blockchain.com, “Hashrate distribution,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.blockchain.com/pools

    2019

  30. [38]

    [Online]

    Bitshares, 2013-2017. [Online]. Avail- able: https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof- of-stake-consensus/

    2013

  31. [39]

    Using block chain for peer-to-peer proof-of-location,

    G. Brambilla, M. Amoretti, and F. Zanichelli, “Using block chain for peer-to-peer proof-of-location,” CoRR, vol. abs/1607.00174, 2016. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/1607.00174

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hashcash - A denial of service counter-measure,

    A. Black, “Hashcash - A denial of service counter-measure,” Cypherspace, Tech. Rep., 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.hashcash.org/papers/ hashcash.pdf

    2002

  33. [41]

    Validator Ordering and Randomness in PoS

    V . Buterin, “Validator Ordering and Randomness in PoS.” [Online]. Available: https://vitalik.ca/files/ randomness.html

  34. [42]

    Why Buy When You Can Rent? - Bribery Attacks on Bitcoin-Style Consensus,

    J. Bonneau, “Why Buy When You Can Rent? - Bribery Attacks on Bitcoin-Style Consensus,” in 2016 Interna- tional Workshops on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC), BITCOIN, VOTING, and WAHC, Christ Church, Barbados, February 26, 2016, Revised Selected Papers, 2016, pp. 19–26

    2016

  35. [43]

    Light Clients and Proof of Stake,

    ——, “Light Clients and Proof of Stake,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/ 10/light-clients-proof-stake/

    2015

  36. [44]

    Tendermint: Byzantine Fault Tolerance in the Age of Blockchains,

    E. Buchman, “Tendermint: Byzantine Fault Tolerance in the Age of Blockchains,” Master’s thesis, The Uni- versity of Guelph, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    State Tree Pruning,

    ——, “State Tree Pruning,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/06/26/state- tree-pruning/

    2015

  38. [46]

    Long Range Attacks: The Serious Problem with Adaptive Proof-of-Work,

    ——, “Long Range Attacks: The Serious Problem with Adaptive Proof-of-Work,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/15/long- range-attacks-the-serious-problem-with-adaptive- proof-of-work/

    2014

  39. [47]

    On public and private blockchains,

    ——, “On public and private blockchains,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/ 07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/

    2015

  40. [48]

    The problem of censorship,

    ——, “The problem of censorship,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/06/ 06/the-problem-of-censorship/

    2015

  41. [49]

    Blockchain Con- sensus Protocols in the Wild,

    C. Cachin and M. Vukoli ´c, “Blockchain Con- sensus Protocols in the Wild,” CoRR arXiv , vol. abs/1707.01873, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01873

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Casper FFG with one message type, and simpler fork choice rule,

    ——, “Casper FFG with one message type, and simpler fork choice rule,” 2017. [On- line]. Available: https://ethresear.ch/t/casper-ffg-with- one-message-type-and-simpler-fork-choice-rule/103

    2017

  43. [51]

    Bitcoin Cash,

    B. Cash, “Bitcoin Cash,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.bitcoincash.org/#faq-section

    2017

  44. [52]

    Transactions as proof-of-stake & the end of mining,

    bytemaster and bitsharestalk.org, “Transactions as proof-of-stake & the end of mining,” 2013. [Online]. Available: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php? topic=1138.msg13602#msg13602A

    2013

  45. [53]

    Analysis of the XRP ledger consensus protocol,

    B. Chase and E. MacBrough, “Analysis of the XRP ledger consensus protocol,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07242

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Exploring the Monero Peer-to-Peer Network,

    T. Cao, J. Yu, J. Decouchant, X. Luo, and P. Ver ´ıssimo, “Exploring the Monero Peer-to-Peer Network,” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive , vol. 2019, p. 411, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/411

    2019

  47. [55]

    Traveling the silk road: A measurement 38 analysis of a large anonymous online marketplace,

    N. Christin, “Traveling the silk road: A measurement 38 analysis of a large anonymous online marketplace,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web , ser. WWW ’13. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2013, pp. 213–224. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/...

    2013

  48. [56]

    Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance and Proactive Recovery,

    M. Castro and B. Liskov, “Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance and Proactive Recovery,” ACM Trans. Com- put. Syst., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 398–461, 2002

    2002

  49. [57]

    Coinbase: Ethereum Classic Double Spending Involved More Than $1.1 Million in Crypto,

    CoinTelegraph, “Coinbase: Ethereum Classic Double Spending Involved More Than $1.1 Million in Crypto,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://cointelegraph.com/news/coinbase-ethereum- classic-double-spending-involved-more-than-11- million-in-crypto

    2019

  50. [58]

    On Security Analysis of Proof-of-Elapsed- Time (PoET),

    L. Chen, L. Xu, N. Shah, Z. Gao, Y . Lu, and W. Shi, “On Security Analysis of Proof-of-Elapsed- Time (PoET),” in International Symposium on Stabi- lization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems . Springer, 2017, pp. 282–297

    2017

  51. [59]

    DBFT: efficient leaderless byzantine consensus and its application to blockchains,

    T. Crain, V . Gramoli, M. Larrea, and M. Raynal, “DBFT: efficient leaderless byzantine consensus and its application to blockchains,” in 17th IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications, NCA 2018, Cambridge, MA, USA, November 1-3, 2018, 2018, pp. 1–8

    2018

  52. [60]

    Arcade city,

    A. City, “Arcade city,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arcade.city/

    2018

  53. [61]

    B-money,

    W. Dai, “B-money,” 1998. [Online]. Available: http: //www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

    1998

  54. [62]

    A survey on security and privacy issues of bitcoin,

    M. Conti, S. K. E, C. Lal, and S. Ruj, “A survey on security and privacy issues of bitcoin,” IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 3416–3452, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2842460

    2018

  55. [63]

    Ouroboros Praos: An Adaptively-Secure, Semi- synchronous Proof-of-Stake Blockchain,

    B. David, P. Ga ˇzi, A. Kiayias, and A. Rus- sell, “Ouroboros Praos: An Adaptively-Secure, Semi- synchronous Proof-of-Stake Blockchain,” in Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2018 , J. B. Nielsen and V . Rijmen, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 66–98

    2018

  56. [64]

    Evaluating the red belly blockchain,

    T. Crain, C. Natoli, and V . Gramoli, “Evaluating the red belly blockchain,” CoRR, vol. abs/1812.11747, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.11747

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Information Propaga- tion in the Bitcoin Network,

    C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer, “Information Propaga- tion in the Bitcoin Network,” in 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P). IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–10

    2013

  58. [66]

    Snow White: Robustly Reconfigurable Consensus and Applications to Provably Secure Proofs of Stake,

    P. Daian, R. Pass, and E. Shi, “Snow White: Robustly Reconfigurable Consensus and Applications to Provably Secure Proofs of Stake,” in 23rd International Con- ference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security FC’19 February 1822, 2019 St. Kitts Marriott Resort St. Kitts, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Towards an optimized blockchain for iot,

    A. Dorri, S. S. Kanhere, and R. Jurdak, “Towards an optimized blockchain for iot,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation. ACM, 2017, pp. 173–178

    2017

  60. [68]

    Bitcoin meets strong consistency,

    C. Decker, J. Seidel, and R. Wattenhofer, “Bitcoin meets strong consistency,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking. ACM, 2016, p. 13

    2016

  61. [69]

    The sybil attack,

    J. R. Douceur, “The sybil attack,” in Peer-to-Peer Sys- tems, P. Druschel, F. Kaashoek, and A. Rowstron, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002, pp. 251–260

    2002

  62. [70]

    Dhinsa and T

    N. Dhinsa and T. Marquez, “Chasyr,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.chasyr.com/

    2017

  63. [71]

    Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony,

    C. Dwork, N. A. Lynch, and L. J. Stockmeyer, “Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony,” J. ACM, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 288–323, 1988. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/42282.42283

    1988

  64. [72]

    Blockchain for iot security and privacy: The case study of a smart home,

    A. Dorri, S. S. Kanhere, R. Jurdak, and P. Gauravaram, “Blockchain for iot security and privacy: The case study of a smart home,” in 2017 IEEE International Con- ference on Pervasive Computing and Communications workshops (PerCom workshops). IEEE, 2017, pp. 618– 623

    2017

  65. [73]

    Proofs of space,

    S. Dziembowski, S. Faust, V . Kolmogorov, and K. Pietrzak, “Proofs of space,” in 35th Annual Cryptol- ogy Conference (CRYPTO) 2015, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 16-20, 2015, Proceedings, Part II , 2015, pp. 585–605

    2015

  66. [74]

    On Memory- Bound Functions for Fighting Spam,

    C. Dwork, A. V . Goldberg, and M. Naor, “On Memory- Bound Functions for Fighting Spam,” in 23rd Annual International Cryptology Conference CRYPTO 2003, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 17-21, 2003, Proceedings, 2003, pp. 426–444

    2003

  67. [75]

    The attack of the clones against proof-of- authority,

    ——, “The attack of the clones against proof-of- authority,”CoRR, vol. abs/1902.10244, 2019, Presented at EDCON Sydney 2019. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/1902.10244

    1902 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Pricing via processing or com- batting junk mail,

    C. Dwork and M. Naor, “Pricing via processing or com- batting junk mail,” in Annual International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 1992, pp. 139–147

    1992

  69. [77]

    Solidity,

    ——, “Solidity,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //solidity.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    2014

  70. [78]

    Impact of man-in-the-middle attacks on ethereum,

    P. Ekparinya, V . Gramoli, and G. Jourjon, “Impact of man-in-the-middle attacks on ethereum,” in 2018 IEEE 37th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 11–20

    2018

  71. [79]

    Proof-of-stake faq - ethereum,

    Ethereum, “Proof-of-stake faq - ethereum,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/ wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ

    2017

  72. [80]

    Patricia Tree,

    Ethereum, “Patricia Tree,” 2014, updated June 2018. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/ wiki/Patricia-Tree

    2014

  73. [81]

    Light Client Protocol,

    Ethereum, J. Ray, V . Buterin, J. McKinney, and Heiko, “Light Client Protocol,” 2014-2018. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Light- client-protocol

    2014

  74. [82]

    Ethereum,

    “Ethereum,” https://www.ethereum.org/, 2017

    2017

  75. [83]

    Problems,

    Ethereum Wiki, “Problems,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Problems

    2017

  76. [84]

    Sharding FAQs - On Sharding Blockchains,

    Ethereum, V . Buterin, J. Ray, T. Ishizaki, and V . Griffith, “Sharding FAQs - On Sharding Blockchains,” 2016-

    2016

  77. [85]

    Majority Is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable,

    I. Eyal and E. G. Sirer, “Majority Is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable,” in 18th International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Se- curity, FC 2014, Christ Church, Barbados, March 3-7, 2014, Revised Selected Papers , 2014, pp. 436–454

    2014

  78. [86]

    Finney’s attack,

    H. Finney, “Finney’s attack,” February 2011. [Online]. Available: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3441. msg48384#msg48384

    2011

  79. [87]

    Ethereum 2.0 specs,

    Ethereum Foundation. Ethereum, “Ethereum 2.0 specs,”

  80. [88]

    Available: https://github.com/ethereum/ eth2.0-specs

    [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/ eth2.0-specs

  81. [89]

    The Bit- coin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications,

    J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos, “The Bit- coin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications,” in Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques . Springer, 2015, pp. 281–310

    2015

  82. [90]

    Bitcoin-NG: A scalable blockchain protocol,

    I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, E. G. Sirer, and R. V . Renesse, “Bitcoin-NG: A scalable blockchain protocol,” in 13th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 16). Santa Clara, CA: USENIX 39 Association, Mar. 2016, pp. 45–59

    2016

  83. [91]

    The burst dymaxion,

    S. Gauld, F. von Acoina, and R. Stadler, “The burst dymaxion,” 2017. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.burst-coin.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/07/The-Burst-Dymaxion-1.00.pdf

    2017

  84. [92]

    Stake-bleeding attacks on proof-of-stake blockchains,

    P. Ga ˇzi, A. Kiayias, and A. Russell, “Stake-bleeding attacks on proof-of-stake blockchains,” in 2018 Crypto Valley Conference on Blockchain Technology (CVCBT). IEEE, 2018, pp. 85–92

    2018

  85. [93]

    Im- possibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process,

    M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. Paterson, “Im- possibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process,” J. ACM, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 374–382, 1985

    1985

  86. [94]

    Traceable ring signature,

    E. Fujisaki and K. Suzuki, “Traceable ring signature,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Practice and Theory in Public-key Cryptography , ser. PKC’07. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2007, pp. 181–200. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/ citation....

    2007

  87. [95]

    Bit- coin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay,

    J. G ¨obel, H. Keeler, A. Krzesinski, and P. Taylor, “Bit- coin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay,” Performance Evaluation, July 2016

    2016

  88. [96]

    The Bitcoin backbone protocol with chains of variable difficulty,

    J. A. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos, “The Bitcoin backbone protocol with chains of variable difficulty,” in 37th Annual International Cryptology Conference CRYPTO 2017, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 20-24, 2017, Proceedings, Part I , 2017, pp. 291–323. [Online]. Availabl...

    2017 doi

  89. [97]

    From blockchain consensus back to Byzantine consensus,

    V . Gramoli, “From blockchain consensus back to Byzantine consensus,” Future Generation Computer Systems , 2017. [Online]. Avail- able: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0167739X17320095

    2017

  90. [98]

    How to time-stamp a digital document,

    S. Haber and W. S. Stornetta, “How to time-stamp a digital document,” Journal of Cryptology , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 99–111, Jan 1991. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00196791

    1991 doi

  91. [99]

    On the security and per- formance of proof of work blockchains,

    A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. W ¨ust, V . Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, and S. Capkun, “On the security and per- formance of proof of work blockchains,” inProceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24- 28, 2016, 20...

    2016

  92. [100]

    ALGORAND: Scaling Byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies,

    Y . Gilad, R. Hemo, S. Micali, G. Vlachos, and N. Zel- dovich, “ALGORAND: Scaling Byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies,” in Proceedings of the 26th Sym- posium on Operating Systems Principles . ACM, 2017, pp. 51–68

    2017

  93. [101]

    Eclipse Attacks on Bitcoin’s Peer-to-Peer Network,

    E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg, “Eclipse Attacks on Bitcoin’s Peer-to-Peer Network,” in 24th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 15, Washington, D.C., USA, August 12-14, 2015. , 2015, pp. 129–144

    2015

  94. [102]

    Cache Attacks on Intel SGX,

    J. G ¨otzfried, M. Eckert, S. Schinzel, and T. M ¨uller, “Cache Attacks on Intel SGX,” in Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Systems Security , ser. EuroSec’17. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2017, pp. 2:1–2:6. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10. 1145/3065913.3065915

    2017

  95. [103]

    Managing iot devices us- ing blockchain platform,

    S. Huh, S. Cho, and S. Kim, “Managing iot devices us- ing blockchain platform,” in 19th international confer- ence on advanced communication technology (ICACT)

  96. [104]

    Hyperledger sawtooth journal,

    Hyperledger, “Hyperledger sawtooth journal,” 2015-

    2015

  97. [105]

    Evaluat- ing cryptonote-style blockchains,

    R. Han, J. Yu, J. K. Liu, and P. Zhang, “Evaluat- ing cryptonote-style blockchains,” in 14th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology, Inscrypt 2018, Fuzhou, China, December 14-17, 2018, Revised Selected Papers, 2018, pp. 29–48

    2018

  98. [106]

    DFINITY technology overview series, consensus system,

    T. Hanke, M. Movahedi, and D. Williams, “DFINITY technology overview series, consensus system,” CoRR, vol. abs/1805.04548, 2018. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/1805.04548

    2018 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Bank of Montreal, CaixaBank, Commerzbank, Erste Group, IBM and UBS Collaborate to Advance an Open, Blockchain-based Trade Finance Platform,

    IBM, “Bank of Montreal, CaixaBank, Commerzbank, Erste Group, IBM and UBS Collaborate to Advance an Open, Blockchain-based Trade Finance Platform,”

  100. [108]

    Cryptanalysis of curl-p and other attacks on the IOTA cryptocurrency,

    E. Heilman, N. Narula, G. Tanzer, J. Lovejoy, M. Colavita, M. Virza, and T. Dryja, “Cryptanalysis of curl-p and other attacks on the IOTA cryptocurrency,” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive , vol. 2019, p. 344,

    2019

  101. [109]

    Ethereum Development Tutorial,

    H. Ibrahim, J. Ray, liuxiopai, kakousis, A. Xiong, F. V ogelsteller, L. Zeug, K. Chia, H. C. Stockhausen, B. Joseff, jn pn, ghasshee, V . buterin, J. Kwon, and G. Wood, “Ethereum Development Tutorial,” 2014-

    2014

  102. [110]

    Intel software guard extensions,

    Intel, “Intel software guard extensions,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://software.intel.com/en-us/sgx

    2014

  103. [111]

    IEEE, 2017, pp. 464–467

    2017

  104. [112]

    Proof of elapsed time,

    Intelledger, “Proof of elapsed time,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html

    2016

  105. [113]

    Available: https://sawtooth.hyperledger

    [Online]. Available: https://sawtooth.hyperledger. org/docs/core/releases/1.0/architecture/journal.html

  106. [114]

    Hyperledger,

    “Hyperledger,” https://www.hyperledger.org/, 2017

    2017

  107. [115]

    IBM Blockchain: Hyperledger Fabric,

    “IBM Blockchain: Hyperledger Fabric,” https://www. ibm.com/blockchain/hyperledger.html, 2017

    2017

  108. [116]

    Clique poa protocol & rinkeby poa testnet,

    karalabe and Ethereum, “Clique poa protocol & rinkeby poa testnet,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-225

    2017

  109. [117]

    Available: https://www-03.ibm.com/ press/us/en/pressrelease/53208.wss

    [Online]. Available: https://www-03.ibm.com/ press/us/en/pressrelease/53208.wss

  110. [118]

    Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC),

    ——, “Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC),”

  111. [119]

    Available: https://www.ibm.com/case- studies/abu-dhabi-national-oil-company-adnoc

    [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/case- studies/abu-dhabi-national-oil-company-adnoc

  112. [120]

    Enhancing Bitcoin Security and Performance with Strong Consistency via Collec- tive Signing,

    E. Kokoris-Kogias, P. Jovanovic, N. Gailly, I. Khoffi, L. Gasser, and B. Ford, “Enhancing Bitcoin Security and Performance with Strong Consistency via Collec- tive Signing,” in 25th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 16, Austin, TX, USA, August 10-12, 2016., 2016, pp. 279–296

    2016

  113. [121]

    Available: https://github.com/ethereum/ wiki/wiki/Ethereum-Development-Tutorial

    [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/ wiki/wiki/Ethereum-Development-Tutorial

  114. [122]

    A traceability analysis of monero’s blockchain,

    A. Kumar, C. Fischer, S. Tople, and P. Saxena, “A traceability analysis of monero’s blockchain,” in 22nd European Symposium on Research in Computer Secu- rity (ESORICS) 2017 , Oslo, Norway, September 11-15, 2017, Proceedings, Part II , 2017, pp. 153–173

    2017

  115. [123]

    Hyperledger Saw- tooth PoET Documentation,

    Intel and HyperLedger, “Hyperledger Saw- tooth PoET Documentation,” 2017. [Online]. 40 Available: https://sawtooth.hyperledger.org/docs/core/ releases/latest/architecture/poet.html

    2017

  116. [124]

    Cosmos: A network of distributed ledgers,

    J. Kwon and E. Buchman, “Cosmos: A network of distributed ledgers,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://cosmos.network/cosmos-whitepaper.pdf

    2017

  117. [125]

    SGX-Bomb: Locking down the processor via Rowhammer attack,

    Y . Jang, J. Lee, S. Lee, and T. Kim, “SGX-Bomb: Locking down the processor via Rowhammer attack,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution . ACM, 2017, p. 5

    2017

  118. [126]

    Pors: Proofs of retriev- ability for large files,

    A. Juels and B. S. Kaliski Jr, “Pors: Proofs of retriev- ability for large files,” in Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security . Acm, 2007, pp. 584–597

    2007

  119. [127]

    An empirical analysis of anonymity in zcash,

    G. Kappos, H. Yousaf, M. Maller, and S. Meiklejohn, “An empirical analysis of anonymity in zcash,” in 27th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 2018, Baltimore, MD, USA, August 15-17, 2018. , 2018, pp. 463–477

    2018

  120. [128]

    Raiblocks: A feeless distributed cryptcurrency network,

    C. LeMahieu, “Raiblocks: A feeless distributed cryptcurrency network,” 2017 (original 2014). [On- line]. Available: https://raiblocks.net/media/RaiBlocks Whitepaper English.pdf

    2017

  121. [129]

    Double- spending fast payments in Bitcoin,

    G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, and S. Capkun, “Double- spending fast payments in Bitcoin,” in Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communi- cations security. ACM, 2012, pp. 906–917

    2012

  122. [130]

    Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol,

    A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov, “Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol,” in Annual International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 2017, pp. 357–388

    2017

  123. [131]

    Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto- currency with proof-of-stake,

    S. King and S. Nadal, “Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto- currency with proof-of-stake,” self-published paper, Au- gust, vol. 19, 2012

    2012

  124. [132]

    XFT: Practical Fault Tolerance beyond Crashes,

    S. Liu, P. Viotti, C. Cachin, V . Qu´ema, and M. Vukoli´c, “XFT: Practical Fault Tolerance beyond Crashes,” in 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 16) , 2016, pp. 485–500

    2016

  125. [133]

    Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?

    N. Kshetri, “Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?” IT professional, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 68–72, 2017

    2017

  126. [134]

    Byzantine Quorum Sys- tems,

    D. Malkhi and M. K. Reiter, “Byzantine Quorum Sys- tems,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, El Paso, Texas, USA, May 4-6, 1997 , 1997, pp. 569–578

    1997

  127. [135]

    Tendermint: Consensus without mining,

    J. Kwon, “Tendermint: Consensus without mining,” http://tendermint.com/docs/tendermint v04.pdf, 2014

    2014

  128. [136]

    Fast Byzantine consensus,

    J.-P. Martin and L. Alvisi, “Fast Byzantine consensus,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Comput- ing, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 202–215, 2006

    2006

  129. [137]

    Password authentication with insecure communication,

    L. Lamport, “Password authentication with insecure communication,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 770–772, 1981

    1981

  130. [138]

    The Byzantine Generals Problem,

    L. Lamport, R. E. Shostak, and M. C. Pease, “The Byzantine Generals Problem,” ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 382–401, 1982

    1982

  131. [139]

    Transactions as proof-of-stake,

    D. Larimer, “Transactions as proof-of-stake,” 2013. [Online]. Available: https://bravenewcoin.com/assets/ Uploads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake10.pdf

    2013

  132. [140]

    ALGORAND: the efficient and democratic ledger,

    S. Micali, “ALGORAND: the efficient and democratic ledger,” CoRR, vol. abs/1607.01341, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341

    2016 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Delegated proof of stake,

    Lisk.io, “Delegated proof of stake,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://lisk.io/academy/blockchain-basics/ how-does-blockchain-work/delegated-proof-of-stake

    2018

  134. [142]

    Litecoin,

    Litecoin, “Litecoin,” 2011. [Online]. Available: https: //litecoin.info/index.php/Litecoin

    2011

  135. [143]

    Linkable spontaneous anonymous group signature for ad hoc groups (extended abstract),

    J. K. Liu, V . K. Wei, and D. S. Wong, “Linkable spontaneous anonymous group signature for ad hoc groups (extended abstract),” in Information Security and Privacy: 9th Australasian Conference, ACISP 2004, Sydney, Australia, July 13-15, 2004. Proceedings, 2004, pp. 325–335

    2004

  136. [144]

    Walmart is betting on the blockchain to improve food safety,

    R. Miller, “Walmart is betting on the blockchain to improve food safety,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/24/walmart- is-betting-on-the-blockchain-to-improve-food-safety/

    2018

  137. [145]

    Namecoin,

    A. Loibl, “Namecoin,” namecoin. info, 2014

    2014

  138. [146]

    CacheZoom: How SGX amplifies the power of cache attacks,

    A. Moghimi, G. Irazoqui, and T. Eisenbarth, “CacheZoom: How SGX amplifies the power of cache attacks,” in International Conference on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems . Springer, 2017, pp. 69–90

    2017

  139. [147]

    35 Amazing Real World Examples Of How Blockchain Is Changing Our World,

    B. Marr, “35 Amazing Real World Examples Of How Blockchain Is Changing Our World,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/ 2018/01/22/35-amazing-real-world-examples-of-how- blockchain-is-changing-our-world/#351e61a543b5

    2018

  140. [148]

    Bitcoin Core version 0.10.1 released,

    A. Morcos, C. Fields, dexX7, fsb4000, G. Andresen, G. Maxwell, I. Pustogarov, J. Nick, J. Schnelli, M. Corallo, mrbandrews, P. Wuille, R. de Vries, S. Daftuar, and W. J. van der Laan, “Bitcoin Core version 0.10.1 released,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://bitcoin.org/en/rel...

  141. [149]

    Stellar

    D. Mazieres, “Stellar.” [Online]. Available: https: //www.stellar.org/

  142. [150]

    A digital signature based on a con- ventional encryption function,

    R. C. Merkle, “A digital signature based on a con- ventional encryption function,” in Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques . Springer, 1987, pp. 369–378

    1987

  143. [151]

    Blockchain technology in healthcare: The revolution starts here,

    M. Mettler, “Blockchain technology in healthcare: The revolution starts here,” in e-Health Networking, Ap- plications and Services (Healthcom), 2016 IEEE 18th International Conference on . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–3

    2016

  144. [152]

    The Balance Attack or Why Forkable Blockchains Are Ill-Suited for Consortium,

    ——, “The Balance Attack or Why Forkable Blockchains Are Ill-Suited for Consortium,” in 2017 47th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 579–590

    2017

  145. [153]

    Ze- rocoin: Anonymous distributed e-cash from Bitcoin,

    I. Miers, C. Garman, M. Green, and A. D. Rubin, “Ze- rocoin: Anonymous distributed e-cash from Bitcoin,” in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . IEEE, 2013, pp. 397–411

    2013

  146. [154]

    Permacoin: Repurposing Bitcoin Work for Data Preser- vation,

    A. Miller, A. Juels, E. Shi, B. Parno, and J. Katz, “Permacoin: Repurposing Bitcoin Work for Data Preser- vation,” in 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2014, Berkeley, CA, USA, May 18-21, 2014, 2014, pp. 475–490

    2014

  147. [155]

    The Honey Badger of BFT Protocols,

    A. Miller, Y . Xia, K. Croman, E. Shi, and D. Song, “The Honey Badger of BFT Protocols,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24- 41 28, 2016, 2016, pp. 31–42

    2016

  148. [156]

    Proof of authority chains,

    Parity, “Proof of authority chains,” 2017. [On- line]. Available: https://github.com/paritytech/parity/ wiki/Proof-of-Authority-Chains

    2017

  149. [157]

    Proof of luck: an efficient blockchain consensus protocol,

    M. Milutinovic, W. He, H. Wu, and M. Kanwal, “Proof of luck: an efficient blockchain consensus protocol,” in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution, SysTEX@Middleware 2016, Trento, Italy, December 12, 2016 , 2016, pp. 21–26

    2016

  150. [158]

    Polkadot lightpaper,

    Parity Technologies and Web3 Foundation, “Polkadot lightpaper,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://polkadot. network/Polkadot-lightpaper.pdf

    2017

  151. [159]

    [Online]

    Monero, “Monero,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //getmonero.org/resources/research-lab/

    2014

  152. [160]

    Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks,

    R. Pass, L. Seeman, and A. Shelat, “Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks,” in 36th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Ap- plications of Cryptographic Techniques (EUROCRYPT) 2017, Paris, France, April 30 - May 4, 2017, Proceed- ings, Part ...

    2017

  153. [161]

    An Empirical Analysis of Traceability in the Monero Blockchain,

    M. M ¨oser, K. Soska, E. Heilman, K. Lee, H. Hef- fan, S. Srivastava, K. Hogan, J. Hennessey, A. Miller, A. Narayanan, and N. Christin, “An Empirical Analysis of Traceability in the Monero Blockchain,” Proceedings of Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETs), vol. 2018, ...

    2018

  154. [162]

    Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,

    S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” 2009. [Online]. Available: https://bitcoin.org/ bitcoin.pdf

    2009

  155. [163]

    The Blockchain Anomaly,

    C. Natoli and V . Gramoli, “The Blockchain Anomaly,” in 2016 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Net- work Computing and Applications (NCA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 310–317

    2016

  156. [164]

    Thunderella: Blockchains with optimistic instant confirmation,

    ——, “Thunderella: Blockchains with optimistic instant confirmation,” in 37th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Tech- niques (EUROCRYPT) 2018, Tel Aviv, Israel, April 29 - May 3, 2018 Proceedings, Part II , 2018, pp. 3–33

    2018

  157. [165]

    Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack,

    K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi, “Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack,” in IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, EuroS&P 2016, Saarbr ¨ucken, Germany, March 21-24, 2016 , 2016, pp. 305–320

    2016

  158. [166]

    Ring signature confidential transactions for monero,

    S. Noether, “Ring signature confidential transactions for monero,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/1098, 2015, https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1098

    2015

  159. [167]

    NXT Whitepaper,

    NXT, “NXT Whitepaper,” 2016. [Online]. Available: http://nxtwiki.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt

    2016

  160. [168]

    The Tangle,

    S. Popov, “The Tangle,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://iota.org/IOTA Whitepaper.pdf

    2017

  161. [169]

    Light Ethereum SubProtocol (LES) - Wiki,

    Parity Technologies, “Light Ethereum SubProtocol (LES) - Wiki,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https: //wiki.parity.io/Light-Ethereum-Subprotocol-(LES)

    2015

  162. [170]

    R3, “Corda,” Available from https://www.corda.net/, 2016

    2016

  163. [171]

    Spacemint: A cryptocurrency based on proofs of space,

    S. Park, K. Pietrzak, A. Kwon, J. Alwen, G. Fuchsbauer, and P. Gazi, “Spacemint: A cryptocurrency based on proofs of space,” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive , vol. 2015, p. 528, 2015

    2015

  164. [172]

    A Secure Group Membership Protocol,

    M. K. Reiter, “A Secure Group Membership Protocol,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 31–42, 1996

    1996

  165. [173]

    Fruitchains: A fair blockchain,

    R. Pass and E. Shi, “Fruitchains: A fair blockchain,” in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. ACM, 2017, pp. 315–324

    2017

  166. [174]

    Hybrid Consensus: Efficient Consensus in the Permissionless Model,

    ——, “Hybrid Consensus: Efficient Consensus in the Permissionless Model,” in 31st International Sympo- sium on Distributed Computing, DISC 2017, October 16-20, 2017, Vienna, Austria , 2017, pp. 39:1–39:16

    2017

  167. [175]

    The sleepy model of consensus,

    ——, “The sleepy model of consensus,” in Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2017 , T. Takagi and T. Peyrin, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publish- ing, 2017, pp. 380–409

    2017

  168. [176]

    It’s here: The second bitcoin whitepaper,

    dacoinminster, “It’s here: The second bitcoin whitepaper,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https: //bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56901.0

    2012

  169. [177]

    A blockchain-based approach to health information ex- change networks,

    K. Peterson, R. Deeduvanu, P. Kanjamala, and K. Boles, “A blockchain-based approach to health information ex- change networks,” in Proc. NIST Workshop Blockchain Healthcare, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 1–10

    2016

  170. [178]

    Plasma: Scalable autonomous smart contracts,

    J. Poon and V . Buterin, “Plasma: Scalable autonomous smart contracts,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //plasma.io/plasma.pdf

    2017

  171. [179]

    The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments,

    J. Poon and T. Dryja, “The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://lightning.network

    2015

  172. [180]

    [Online]

    Parity, “Aura,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //wiki.parity.io/Aura

    2018

  173. [181]

    Bitcoin Forum - Proof of Stake instead of Proof of Work,

    QuantumMechanic, “Bitcoin Forum - Proof of Stake instead of Proof of Work,” 2011. [Online]. Available: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27787.0

    2011

  174. [182]

    Platin Whitepaper,

    Platin, “Platin Whitepaper,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://platin.io/assets/whitepaper/Platin Whitepaper v3.03.pdf

    2019

  175. [183]

    eW ASM Compendium,

    J. Ray, “eW ASM Compendium,” 2018. [Online]. Avail- able: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/EWasm- compendium

    2018

  176. [184]

    On blockchain and its integration with iot. challenges and opportunities,

    A. Reyna, C. Mart ´ın, J. Chen, E. Soler, and M. D ´ıaz, “On blockchain and its integration with iot. challenges and opportunities,” Future Generation Computer Sys- tems, vol. 88, pp. 173–190, 2018

    2018

  177. [185]

    zkSNARKs in a Nutshell,

    C. Reitwiessner, “zkSNARKs in a Nutshell,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/12/ 05/zksnarks-in-a-nutshell/

    2016

  178. [186]

    Amd secure technology,

    AMD, “Amd secure technology,” 2013. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/security

    2013

  179. [187]

    Building a secure system using trustzone technology,

    ARM, “Building a secure system using trustzone technology,” 2009. [Online]. 42 Available: http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/ com.arm.doc.prd29-genc-009492c/PRD29-GENC- 009492C trustzone security whitepaper.pdf

    2009

  180. [188]

    CBC Casper Resource List,

    N. Rush, D. Ryan, V . Zamfir, and Ethereum, “CBC Casper Resource List,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/ethereum/cbc-casper/wiki/Resource-List

    2018

  181. [189]

    The Second Bitcoin Whitepaper,

    ——, “The Second Bitcoin Whitepaper,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/ 2ndbtcwpaper/2ndBitcoinWhitepaper.pdf

    2012

  182. [190]

    [Online]

    Ethereum, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://github. com/ethereum/go-ethereum

    2013

  183. [191]

    Libra white paper,

    Libra, “Libra white paper,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/

    2019

  184. [192]

    Implementing Fault-tolerant Services Using the State Machine Approach: A Tutorial,

    F. B. Schneider, “Implementing Fault-tolerant Services Using the State Machine Approach: A Tutorial,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 299–319, Dec. 1990. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/98163. 98167

    1990 doi

  185. [193]

    [Online]

    Parity Technologies, 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/paritytech/parity-ethereum

    2016

  186. [194]

    Malware guard extension: Using SGX to conceal cache attacks,

    M. Schwarz, S. Weiser, D. Gruss, C. Maurice, and S. Mangard, “Malware guard extension: Using SGX to conceal cache attacks,” in International Conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment. Springer, 2017, pp. 3–24

    2017

  187. [195]

    Poa-network-whitepaper,

    POA Network, “Poa-network-whitepaper,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/poanetwork/ wiki/wiki/POA-Network-Whitepaper

    2018

  188. [196]

    Slimcoin whitepaper,

    Slimcoin and P4Titan, “Slimcoin whitepaper,” 2014. [Online]. Available: www.slimcoin.club/whitepaper.pdf

    2014

  189. [197]

    How to leak a secret,

    R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and Y . Tauman, “How to leak a secret,” in Advances in Cryptology — ASIACRYPT 2001, C. Boyd, Ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001, pp. 552–565

    2001

  190. [198]

    Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems,

    M. Rosenfeld, “Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems,” CoRR, vol. abs/1112.4980, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4980

    2011 arXiv

  191. [199]

    Analysis of hashrate-based double spending,

    ——, “Analysis of hashrate-based double spending,” CoRR, vol. abs/1402.2009, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009

    2009 arXiv

  192. [200]

    Keeping authorities “honest or bust

    E. Syta, I. Tamas, D. Visher, D. I. Wolinsky, P. Jo- vanovic, L. Gasser, N. Gailly, I. Khoffi, and B. Ford, “Keeping authorities “honest or bust” with decentralized witness cosigning,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2016, San Jose, CA, USA, May 22-26, 2016, 2016, ...

    2016

  193. [201]

    Opti- mal selfish mining strategies in Bitcoin,

    A. Sapirshtein, Y . Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar, “Opti- mal selfish mining strategies in Bitcoin,” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security - FC 2016 , 2016

    2016

  194. [202]

    Zerocash: Decentralized Anonymous Payments from Bitcoin,

    E. B. Sasson, A. Chiesa, C. Garman, M. Green, I. Miers, E. Tromer, and M. Virza, “Zerocash: Decentralized Anonymous Payments from Bitcoin,” in IEEE Sympo- sium on Security and Privacy (SP) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 459–474

    2014

  195. [203]

    HEAP: Reliable assessment of BGP hijacking attacks,

    J. Schlamp, R. Holz, Q. Jacquemart, G. Carle, and E. W. Biersack, “HEAP: Reliable assessment of BGP hijacking attacks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1849–1861, 2016

    2016

  196. [204]

    CryptoNote v1.0,

    N. van Saberhagen, “CryptoNote v1.0,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper v1.pdf

    2012

  197. [205]

    The ripple protocol consensus algorithm,

    D. Schwartz, N. Youngs, A. Britto et al. , “The ripple protocol consensus algorithm,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://ripple.com/files/ripple consensus whitepaper.pdf

    2014

  198. [206]

    The vector76 attack,

    vector76, “The vector76 attack,” August 2011. [Online]. Available: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php? topic=36788.msg463391#msg463391

    2011

  199. [207]

    A Livelock Bug in the Presence of Byzantine Validator,

    sifmelcara, “A Livelock Bug in the Presence of Byzantine Validator,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/tendermint/tendermint/issues/1047

    2018

  200. [208]

    Convenience link to Casper+Sharding chain v2.1 spec,

    Ethereum Foundation. Vitalik Buterin, “Convenience link to Casper+Sharding chain v2.1 spec,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://ethresear.ch/t/convenience- link-to-casper-sharding-chain-v2-1-spec/2332

    2018

  201. [209]

    Secure High-rate Trans- action Processing in Bitcoin,

    Y . Sompolinsky and A. Zohar, “Secure High-rate Trans- action Processing in Bitcoin,” in International Confer- ence on Financial Cryptography and Data Security . Springer, 2015, pp. 507–527

    2015

  202. [210]

    Proof of burn. Bitcoin. it,

    I. Stewart, “Proof of burn. Bitcoin. it,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof of burn

    2012

  203. [211]

    Proof of Burn - a potential alternative to proof of work and proof of stake,

    ——, “Proof of Burn - a potential alternative to proof of work and proof of stake,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php? topic=131139.msg1404195

    2012

  204. [212]

    The Quest for Scalable Blockchain Fabric: Proof-of-Work vs. BFT Replication,

    ——, “The Quest for Scalable Blockchain Fabric: Proof-of-Work vs. BFT Replication,” in Open Problems in Network Security - IFIP WG 11.4 International Workshop, iNetSec 2015, Zurich, Switzerland, October 29, 2015, Revised Selected Papers , 2015, pp. 112–125

    2015

  205. [213]

    Snowflake to Avalanche: A Novel Metastable Consensus Protocol Family for Cryptocurrencies,

    Team Rocket, “Snowflake to Avalanche: A Novel Metastable Consensus Protocol Family for Cryptocurrencies,” 2018. [Online]. Avail- able: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUy4jh5mGNZvLkjies1RW- M4YuvJh5o2FYopNPVYwrRVGV

    2018

  206. [214]

    Ethereum Classic (ETC) Hit by Double-Spend Attack Worth $1.1 Million,

    TheHackerNews, “Ethereum Classic (ETC) Hit by Double-Spend Attack Worth $1.1 Million,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://thehackernews.com/2019/ 01/ethereum-double-spend-attack.html

    2019

  207. [215]

    A Protocol for Interledger Payments,

    S. Thomas and E. Schwartz, “A Protocol for Interledger Payments,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://interledger.org/interledger.pdf

    2017

  208. [216]

    Ethereum: A secure decentralised gener- alised transaction ledger,

    G. Wood, “Ethereum: A secure decentralised gener- alised transaction ledger,” Ethereum Project Yellow Pa- per, vol. 151, 2014

    2014

  209. [217]

    BlackCoin’s Proof-of-Stake Protocol v2,

    P. Vasin, “BlackCoin’s Proof-of-Stake Protocol v2,” 2014. [Online]. Available: http://blackcoin.co/ blackcoin-pos-protocol-v2-whitepaper.pdf

    2014

  210. [218]

    BGPmon: A real-time, scalable, exten- sible monitoring system,

    H. Yan, R. Oliveira, K. Burnett, D. Matthews, L. Zhang, and D. Massey, “BGPmon: A real-time, scalable, exten- sible monitoring system,” in Conference For Homeland Security, 2009. CATCH’09. Cybersecurity Applications & Technology. IEEE, 2009, pp. 212–223

    2009

  211. [219]

    Discouragement attacks,

    E. Vitalik Buterin, “Discouragement attacks,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/research/blob/master/ papers/other casper/discouragement.tex

    2017

  212. [220]

    Re-thinking untraceability in the CryptoNote-style blockchain,

    J. Yu, M. H. A. Au, and P. J. E. Ver ´ıssimo, “Re-thinking untraceability in the CryptoNote-style blockchain,” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive , vol. 2019, p. 186, 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //eprint.iacr.org/2019/186

    2019

  213. [221]

    Comchain: Bridging the 43 gap between public and consortium blockchains,

    G. Vizier and V . Gramoli, “Comchain: Bridging the 43 gap between public and consortium blockchains,” in IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communica- tions (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom...

    2018

  214. [222]

    Eventually consistent,

    W. V ogels, “Eventually consistent,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 40–44, 2009

    2009

  215. [223]

    Vukoli ´c, Quorum systems with applications to stor- age and consensus

    M. Vukoli ´c, Quorum systems with applications to stor- age and consensus . San Rafael, Calif: Morgan & Claypool, 2012

    2012

  216. [224]

    What are zk-SNARKs?

    Z-Cash, “What are zk-SNARKs?” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://z.cash/technology/zksnarks.html

    2016

  217. [225]

    A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining management in blockchain networks,

    W. Wang, D. T. Hoang, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, P. Wang, P. Hu, and Y . Wen, “A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining management in blockchain networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1805.02707, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.02707

    2018 arXiv

  218. [226]

    Leaky cauldron on the dark land: Understanding memory side-channel hazards in SGX,

    W. Wang, G. Chen, X. Pan, Y . Zhang, X. Wang, V . Bind- schaedler, H. Tang, and C. A. Gunter, “Leaky cauldron on the dark land: Understanding memory side-channel hazards in SGX,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 201...

    2017

  219. [227]

    On The Unforkability of Monero,

    D. A. Wijaya, J. K. Liu, R. Steinfeld, D. Liu, and J. Yu, “On The Unforkability of Monero,” in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, AsiaCCS 2019, Auckland, New Zealand, July 09-12, 2019 , 2019, pp. 621–632

    2019

  220. [228]

    Toward privacy preserving and col- lusion resistance in a location proof updating system,

    Z. Zhu and G. Cao, “Toward privacy preserving and col- lusion resistance in a location proof updating system,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 51–64, 2011

    2011

  221. [229]

    Silk road sentencing: Why governments can’t win war on darknet drugs,

    N. Woolf, “Silk road sentencing: Why governments can’t win war on darknet drugs,” 2015. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/ may/31/silk-road-sentencing-darknet-drugs

    2015

  222. [231]

    Hotstuff: Bft consensus in the lens of blockchain,

    M. Yin, D. Malkhi, M. K. Reiter, G. G. Gueta, and I. Abraham, “Hotstuff: Bft consensus in the lens of blockchain,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/1803.05069

    2018 arXiv

  223. [233]

    Repucoin: Your reputation is your power,

    J. Yu, D. Kozhaya, J. Decouchant, and P. Esteves- Verissimo, “Repucoin: Your reputation is your power,” IEEE Transactions on Computers (ToC) , 2019

    2019

  224. [234]

    New empirical traceability analysis of CryptoNote- style blockchains,

    Z. Yu, M. H. Au, J. Yu, R. Yang, Q. Xu, and W. F. Lau, “New empirical traceability analysis of CryptoNote- style blockchains,” in 23rd International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) , 2019

    2019

  225. [235]

    Health- care data gateways: found healthcare intelligence on blockchain with novel privacy risk control,

    X. Yue, H. Wang, D. Jin, M. Li, and W. Jiang, “Health- care data gateways: found healthcare intelligence on blockchain with novel privacy risk control,” Journal of medical systems, vol. 40, no. 10, p. 218, 2016

    2016

  226. [237]

    Introducing Casper “the friendly GHOST

    V . Zamfir, “Introducing Casper “the friendly GHOST”,”

  227. [239]

    Practical defenses against BGP prefix hijacking,

    Z. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . C. Hu, and Z. M. Mao, “Practical defenses against BGP prefix hijacking,” in Proceedings of the 2007 ACM CoNEXT conference . ACM, 2007, p. 3

    2007

  228. [240]

    Evaluation DAG-based Blockchains for IoT,

    L. Zhao and J. Yu, “Evaluation DAG-based Blockchains for IoT,” in Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Comput- ing Communications (TrustCom) , 2019

    2019

  229. [242]

    Light Ethereum SubProtocol (LES),

    F. Zsolt, “Light Ethereum SubProtocol (LES),” 2016-

    2016

  230. [243]

    Available: https://github.com/zsfelfoldi/ go-ethereum/wiki/Light-Ethereum-Subprotocol-(LES)

    [Online]. Available: https://github.com/zsfelfoldi/ go-ethereum/wiki/Light-Ethereum-Subprotocol-(LES)

  231. [2015]

    Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/ 2015/08/01/introducing-casper-friendly-ghost/

    [Online]. Available: https://blog.ethereum.org/ 2015/08/01/introducing-casper-friendly-ghost/

    2015

  232. [2016]

    Available: https://www.swirlds.com/ downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://www.swirlds.com/ downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01.pdf

    2016

  233. [2017]

    Available: http://eatcs.org/beatcs/index

    [Online]. Available: http://eatcs.org/beatcs/index. php/beatcs/article/view/506

  234. [2018]

    Available: https://github.com/ethereum/ wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs

    [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ethereum/ wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs

  235. [2019]

    Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/ 344

    [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/ 344

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.