pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10982 · v3 · pith:INSFFTJHnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · 💻 cs.DC

FairWave : A Fairness-Aware Asynchronous DAG-BFT Consensus

Syariful Mujaddiq This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 02:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords DAG-BFTProof-of-StakefairnessSybil resistanceasynchronous consensuscentralizationreward distributionliveness
0
0 comments X

The pith

FairWave separates anchor selection from reward distribution in PoS DAG-BFT to cut centralization while keeping Sybil resistance.

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

The paper presents FairWave as a dual-channel protocol for asynchronous DAG-BFT consensus under Proof-of-Stake. One channel applies super-linear stake weighting to anchor selection so that splitting stake yields less than one unit of gain, while the other applies sub-linear square-root normalization to rewards. DAG-derived uptime and latency replace external oracles, and a lagged reputation score severs the feedback loop between selection results and future weights. A sympathetic reader would care because the design targets the longitudinal plutocracy that arises when liveness is prioritized over fairness, and the reported simulations show a Gini coefficient of 0.140 against 0.490 for pure stake weighting together with a monotone drop in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index.

Core claim

FairWave is a dual-channel DAG-BFT protocol that separates anchor selection from reward distribution. The selection channel is super-linear in stake, guaranteeing Sybil gain less than 1 for K greater than 1; the reward channel is sub-linear via square-root stake normalization. DAG-derived uptime and latency metrics eliminate external oracles, and lagged reputation breaks the circular dependency between selection outcomes and weights.

What carries the argument

Dual-channel separation of super-linear stake-based anchor selection from sub-linear square-root reward distribution.

If this is right

  • Gini coefficient falls to 0.140 versus 0.490 under pure Proof-of-Stake.
  • Herfindahl-Hirschman Index declines monotonically from 0.039 to 0.020 across 50,000 epochs.
  • Optimal Sybil strategy is a single identity (K*=1).
  • Safety holds unconditionally from the 2f+1 commit rule.
  • Liveness falls monotonically from 94 percent at 20 percent faults to 74 percent at one-third faults.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fairness gains may shrink if real message delays deviate from the Monte Carlo delay model.
  • The same channel separation could be tested in partially synchronous DAG protocols that already use similar commit rules.
  • Longer simulation horizons beyond 50,000 epochs would reveal whether the HHI reduction continues or plateaus.

Load-bearing premise

The 550,000 Monte Carlo rounds and the lagged reputation mechanism accurately capture real asynchronous network behavior and break the circular dependency between selection outcomes and weights without introducing new biases.

What would settle it

Deploy the protocol on a live asynchronous network and check whether the Gini coefficient remains near 0.140 and whether any safety violation occurs outside the 2f+1 commit threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10982 by Syariful Mujaddiq.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Nakamoto coefficient, which represents the min [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Lagged reputation timing. Reputation updates (small ticks) accrue continuously through each epoch. At every epoch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Per-epoch seven-phase ceremony executed atomically at every epoch boundary. The pipeline ensures all honest validators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the DAG-wave and anchor-selection struc￾ture and the 2f+1 strong-support commit condition. Per-epoch metric computation. At each epoch boundary, after the seven-phase ceremony (FREEZE → SLASH → REGISTRY → SEED → SNAPSHOT → RESET → [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FairWave dual-channel architecture. Both channels con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Min/Whale reward ratio as a function of stake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sybil selection-channel gain g(K) for four reward rules at xfrac = 0.10. FairWave (green) is the only rule showing monotone decreasing gain (g < 1), establishing strict Sybil resistance. SRSW gain scales as √ K; LSW gain scales approximately linearly with K, reaching 25× at K = 100. Numerical example. For K = 100, x = 1, (α, β, δ) = (0.20, 0.25, 0.15): numerator = 0.20/10 + 0.40 = 0.42, denominator = 0.20 … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of reward share across validators for six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of reward share across validators for six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top-K anchor selection frequency for three rules (Pure￾PoS, FairWave Selection, FairWave Reward). Under Pure-PoS, large-stake validators dominate uniformly. Under FairWave Selection, high-quality small validators enter the top ranks. Under FairWave Reward, quality-weighted distribution reflects multi-factor performance. TABLE IV: Fairness metrics across reward rules (N = 50, het￾erogeneous profiles, Pareto… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top-K anchor selection frequency for three rules (Pure￾PoS, FairWave Selection, FairWave Reward). Under Pure-PoS, whale-bad validator dominates the top-4 despite poor quality. Under FairWave Selection, a whale-good validator correctly occupies the top-5. Under FairWave Reward, a small-good validator enters the top-3. B. Anchor Selection Convergence 10, 000 waves are simulated with N = 50 validators across … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative reward accumulation over 10, 000 epochs under FairWave. Small-good validators (quality = 1.0, stake = Smin) accumulate approximately 7× more reward than whale￾bad validators (quality = 0.10, stake ≈ Smax), demonstrating that operational quality dominates capital in determining eco￾nomic outcomes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Gini coefficient comparison across six reward rules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Return-on-investment (reward share / stake share) per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Lorenz curves for six reward rules with heterogeneous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Decentralization stress testing against whale stake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Return-on-investment (reward share / stake share) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cartel capture heatmap: minimum aggregate stake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Decentralization stress testing against whale stake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Power amplification curve (log-log): per-validator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cartel capture heatmap: minimum aggregate stake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Throughput (TPS) versus network size N on a log￾log scale. The DAG-BFT protocols (including FairWave) scale linearly with N due to parallel vertex production, while leader￾BFT protocols plateau or degrade. PBFT throughput collapses at large N due to O(N2 ) message complexity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Power amplification curve (log-log): per-validator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Cumulative distribution function of commit latency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Cumulative distribution function of commit latency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Finality latency scaling versus network size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Finality latency scaling versus network size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Liveness degradation curve: commit rate as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Success rate heatmap as a function of Byzantine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Success rate heatmap as a function of Byzantine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Commit latency percentiles (P50, P95, and P99) as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Commit latency percentiles (P50, P95, and P99) as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Partition recovery trace over 200 rounds with partition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Partition recovery trace over 200 rounds with partition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Longitudinal concentration metrics over 50, 000 epochs with stake reinvestment. (a) HHI: PoS2 divergent (+195%), Pure-PoS invariant, FairWave decreases monotonically toward 1/N. (b) Gini: FairWave converges to 0.122 (near-egalitarian). (c) Top-1 share: FairWave decreases to 2.6%, converging toward 1/N = 2% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Longitudinal concentration metrics over 50, 000 epochs with stake reinvestment. (a) HHI: PoS2 divergent (+195%), Pure-PoS invariant, FairWave decreases monotonically toward 1/N. (b) Gini: FairWave converges to 0.013 (near-egalitarian). (c) Top-1 share: FairWave decreases to 2.0%, converging toward 1/N = 2% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Stake growth factor per profile (log scale) after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Net economic benefit of Sybil splitting versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Impact of combined Sybil+Byzantine attack ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Impact of combined Sybil+Byzantine attack ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Multi-metric sensitivity to stake weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Multi-metric sensitivity to stake weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Parameter space characterization: (a) objective function landscape on 4-D weight simplex with feasible region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Parameter space characterization: (a) objective function landscape on 4-D weight simplex with feasible region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Pareto frontier: Min/Whale ratio versus farming resistance across 1,407 simplex evaluation points. Default parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Pareto frontier: Min/Whale ratio versus farming resistance across 1,407 simplex evaluation points. Default parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Sensitivity analysis: (a) One-At-a-Time elasticities—all success [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Sensitivity analysis: (a) One-At-a-Time elasticities—all success [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: (a) Success rate surface as a function of (byz rate, and offline rate)—BFT cliff at 1/3 visible; (b) robustness map under combined perturbation of ±25% (300 samples, CV = 5.2%) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_34.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: (a) Success rate surface as a function of (byz rate, and offline rate)—BFT cliff at 1/3 visible; (b) robustness map under combined perturbation of ±25% (300 samples, CV = 5.2%) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_34.png] view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: (a) Reward-channel Sybil gain (isolated, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_35.png] view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: (a) Reward-channel Sybil gain (isolated, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_35.png] view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: Per-profile anchor share allocation. FairWave selection reinforces whale-good (35%) while penalizing whale-bad (22%). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_36.png] view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: Per-profile anchor share allocation. FairWave selection reinforces whale-good (35%) while penalizing whale-bad (22%). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_36.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Proof-of-Stake DAG-BFT consensus faces a trilemma between sybil resistance, reward fairness, and plutocracy. Existing protocols prioritize liveness over fair stake-based selection, driving longitudinal centralization. FairWave is a dual-channel DAG-BFT protocol that separates anchor selection from reward distribution. The selection channel is super-linear in stake, guaranteeing Sybil gain < 1 for K > 1; the reward channel is sub-linear via square-root stake normalization. DAG-derived uptime and latency metrics eliminate external oracles,and lagged reputation breaks circular dependency between selection outcomes and weights. Evaluated through approximately 550,000 Monte Carlo rounds against eight baselines, FairWave shows Gini 0.140 (vs. Pure-PoS 0.490, monotone HHI reduction from 0.039 to 0.020 over 50,000 epochs, and optimal Sybil split K * = 1. Safety follows unconditionally from the 2f + 1 commit rule; the liveness model predicts monotone degradation from 94.0% at b = 0.20 to 74.0% at b = 1/3, consistent with the architectural expectation of no discontinuous cliff.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FairWave, a dual-channel asynchronous DAG-BFT consensus protocol that separates super-linear stake-based anchor selection (to guarantee Sybil gain <1 for K>1) from sub-linear square-root stake-normalized reward distribution. It derives reputation from DAG uptime and latency metrics without external oracles and uses lagged reputation to break the circular dependency between selection outcomes and weights. Through ~550,000 Monte Carlo rounds against eight baselines, it reports Gini coefficient 0.140 (vs. Pure-PoS 0.490), monotone HHI reduction from 0.039 to 0.020 over 50,000 epochs, optimal Sybil split K*=1, unconditional safety from the 2f+1 commit rule, and liveness degrading monotonically from 94.0% at b=0.20 to 74.0% at b=1/3.

Significance. If the Monte Carlo assumptions hold and the lagged reputation mechanism demonstrably decouples selection from weights without introducing new biases, the protocol would offer a concrete mechanism to address the Sybil-resistance/fairness/plutocracy trilemma in PoS DAG-BFT systems. The extensive simulation campaign against multiple baselines and the explicit modeling of liveness degradation are strengths that could inform practical deployments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of Gini 0.140, HHI reduction 0.039→0.020, and K*=1 rest on the assertion that lagged reputation breaks the circular dependency between selection outcomes and weights without new biases. No formal argument, sensitivity analysis on the lag parameter, or explicit delay/failure model is supplied; the 550,000 Monte Carlo rounds are presented without reported assumptions, error bars, or implementation details of the baselines, which is load-bearing for the fairness and longitudinal centralization results.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The liveness model is stated to predict monotone degradation from 94.0% at b=0.20 to 74.0% at b=1/3 and to be 'consistent with the architectural expectation of no discontinuous cliff,' yet no equations, derivation, or parameter values for the model (including how the dual-channel architecture and asynchrony enter) are provided, preventing verification that the prediction follows from the protocol rather than simulation artifacts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'free_parameters' (super-linear stake factor and square-root normalization constant) but does not state their concrete values or whether results are sensitive to them; adding this would improve reproducibility.
  2. Consider reporting the exact number of nodes, stake distributions, and network delay distributions used in the Monte Carlo setup to allow independent reproduction of the Gini/HHI figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and committing to revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of Gini 0.140, HHI reduction 0.039→0.020, and K*=1 rest on the assertion that lagged reputation breaks the circular dependency between selection outcomes and weights without new biases. No formal argument, sensitivity analysis on the lag parameter, or explicit delay/failure model is supplied; the 550,000 Monte Carlo rounds are presented without reported assumptions, error bars, or implementation details of the baselines, which is load-bearing for the fairness and longitudinal centralization results.

    Authors: We agree that additional formalization and details would enhance the presentation. The lagged reputation mechanism uses reputation from the previous epoch to determine selection weights in the current epoch, thereby breaking the circular dependency. We will add a formal argument in a new subsection demonstrating that this lag introduces no new biases under the assumed failure model. Additionally, we will include a sensitivity analysis on the lag parameter (e.g., lag=1 vs. lag=2 epochs) and report the Monte Carlo assumptions, including the random seed, number of runs per configuration, error bars (standard deviation across runs), and detailed implementation of the eight baselines. These changes will be incorporated in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The liveness model is stated to predict monotone degradation from 94.0% at b=0.20 to 74.0% at b=1/3 and to be 'consistent with the architectural expectation of no discontinuous cliff,' yet no equations, derivation, or parameter values for the model (including how the dual-channel architecture and asynchrony enter) are provided, preventing verification that the prediction follows from the protocol rather than simulation artifacts.

    Authors: The liveness prediction is based on a probabilistic model incorporating the dual-channel separation and asynchronous message delivery. We will expand the manuscript to include the full set of equations for the liveness model, the derivation steps, and the specific parameter values used (such as the Byzantine fraction b and asynchrony bounds). This will clarify how the architecture ensures monotone degradation without cliffs, distinguishing it from simulation results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper defines a protocol design choice (lagged reputation using DAG-derived metrics) to address an acknowledged circular dependency between selection and weights, then evaluates the resulting fairness metrics via Monte Carlo simulation. No equations or derivations are exhibited that reduce the central claims (Gini, HHI, K*) to the inputs by construction, nor is any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Safety follows from the standard 2f+1 rule and liveness from an explicit degradation model; both are independent of the fairness mechanism. The simulation results are empirical outputs under the stated design rather than tautological. This is the common case of a self-contained empirical protocol paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The design introduces several unverified parameters and assumptions whose values and independence cannot be checked.

free parameters (2)
  • super-linear stake factor
    Chosen to guarantee Sybil gain <1 for K>1; value not stated.
  • square-root normalization constant
    Applied to reward channel; functional form stated but scaling parameter unspecified.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Safety follows unconditionally from the 2f+1 commit rule
    Standard BFT assumption invoked without further proof in the abstract.
  • domain assumption DAG-derived uptime and latency metrics are reliable substitutes for external oracles
    Central to removing external dependencies; location in abstract description of metrics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5738 in / 1275 out tokens · 25911 ms · 2026-06-29T02:15:41.094235+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Proof-of-stake centralization: A longi- tudinal study,

    S. Motepalli and M. Jacobson, “Proof-of-stake centralization: A longi- tudinal study,”IEEE Transactions on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Centralization in proof-of-stake blockchains: A game-theoretic analysis of bootstrapping protocols,

    V . Srivastava, S. Damle, and S. Gujar, “Centralization in proof-of-stake blockchains: A game-theoretic analysis of bootstrapping protocols,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09627, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Ethereum proof-of-stake under the microscope,

    V . Buterin, D. Herman, D. Reijsbergen, and S. Leonardos, “Ethereum proof-of-stake under the microscope,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.09817, 2020

    work page arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    How centralized is decentralized? com- parison of wealth distribution in coins and tokens,

    B. Ku ´smierz and R. Overko, “How centralized is decentralized? com- parison of wealth distribution in coins and tokens,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01340, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Ethereum proof- of-stake consensus layer: Participation and decentralization,

    D. Grandjean, L. Heimbach, and R. Wattenhofer, “Ethereum proof-of- stake consensus layer: Participation and decentralization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10777, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability,

    P. Daian, S. Goldfeder, T. Kell, Y . Li, X. Zhao, I. Bentov, L. Breidenbach, and A. Juels, “Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability,” in2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2020, pp. 910–927

    2020

  7. [7]

    Nar- whal and tusk: A dag-based mempool and efficient bft consensus,

    G. Danezis, L. Kokoris-Kogias, A. Sonnino, and A. Spiegelman, “Nar- whal and tusk: A dag-based mempool and efficient bft consensus,” in Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), 2022, pp. 34–50

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bullshark: Dag bft protocols made practical,

    A. Spiegelman, N. Giridharan, A. Sonnino, and L. Kokoris-Kogias, “Bullshark: Dag bft protocols made practical,” inProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    Mysticeti: Reaching the limits of latency with uncertified dags,

    K. Babel, A. Chursin, G. Danezis, A. Kichidis, L. Kokoris-Kogias, A. Koshy, A. Sonnino, and M. Tian, “Mysticeti: Reaching the limits of latency with uncertified dags,” inNetwork and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Hotstuff: Bft consensus in the lens of blockchain,

    M. Yin, D. Malkhi, M. K. Reiter, G. Golan-Gueta, and I. Abraham, “Hotstuff: Bft consensus in the lens of blockchain,” inProceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), 2019

    2019

  11. [11]

    Hotstuff-2: Optimal two-phase responsive bft,

    D. Malkhi and K. Nayak, “Hotstuff-2: Optimal two-phase responsive bft,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2023/397, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Practical byzantine fault tolerance,

    M. Castro and B. Liskov, “Practical byzantine fault tolerance,” in Proceedings of the Third USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 1999, pp. 173–186

    1999

  13. [13]

    Tendermint: Byzantine fault tolerance in the age of blockchains,

    E. Buchman, “Tendermint: Byzantine fault tolerance in the age of blockchains,” Whitepaper, 2014

    2014

  14. [14]

    Algorand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies,

    Y . Gilad, R. Hemo, S. Micali, G. Vlachos, and N. Zeldovich, “Algorand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies,” inProceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2017, pp. 51–68

    2017

  15. [15]

    All you need is dag,

    I. Keidar, L. Kokoris-Kogias, O. Naor, and A. Spiegelman, “All you need is dag,” inProceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), 2022, pp. 165–175

    2022

  16. [16]

    Shoal: Improving DAG- BFT latency and robustness.CoRR, abs/2306.03058,

    A. Spiegelman, B. Arun, R. Gelashvili, and Z. Li, “Shoal: Improving dag-bft latency and robustness,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03058, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Shoal++: High throughput dag bft can be fast!ArXiv, abs/2405.20488,

    B. Arun, Z. Li, F. Suri-Payer, S. Das, and A. Spiegelman, “Shoal++: High throughput dag bft can be fast!”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20488, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    The honey badger of bft protocols,

    A. Miller, Y . Xia, K. Croman, E. Shi, and D. Song, “The honey badger of bft protocols,” inProceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2016, pp. 31–42

    2016

  19. [19]

    Another advantage of free choice: Completely asyn- chronous agreement protocols,

    M. Ben-Or, “Another advantage of free choice: Completely asyn- chronous agreement protocols,” inProceedings of the Second Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), 1983, pp. 27–30

    1983

  20. [20]

    Cosmos governance framework,

    J. Kwon, “Cosmos governance framework,” Cosmos Network Documen- tation, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    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,” inAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2017, 2017, pp. 357–388

    2017

  22. [22]

    Ethereum proof-of-stake consensus specification (casper ffg + lmd ghost),

    V . Buterin, D. Herman, and D. Reijsbergen, “Ethereum proof-of-stake consensus specification (casper ffg + lmd ghost),” Ethereum Foundation, Tech. Rep., 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    Approach to allevi- ate wealth compounding in proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies,

    Z. Naderi, S. P. Shariatpanahi, and B. Bahrak, “Approach to alleviate wealth compounding in proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.11714, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Reward schemes and committee sizes in proof of stake governance,

    G. Birmpas, P. Lazos, E. Markakis, and P. Penna, “Reward schemes and committee sizes in proof of stake governance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10525, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Stability of shares in the proof of stake protocol – concen- tration and phase transitions,

    W. Tang, “Stability of shares in the proof of stake protocol – concen- tration and phase transitions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02227, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Measurement of inequality of incomes,

    C. Gini, “Measurement of inequality of incomes,”The Economic Jour- nal, vol. 31, no. 121, pp. 124–126, 1921

    1921

  27. [27]

    Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. i. theory,

    R. I. Cukier, C. M. Fortuin, K. E. Shuler, A. G. Petschek, and J. H. Schaibly, “Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. i. theory,”Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 3873–3878, 1973

    1973

  28. [28]

    Saltelli, M

    A. Saltelli, M. Ratto, T. Andres, F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, D. Gatelli, M. Saisana, and S. Tarantola,Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Wiley, 2010

    2010

  29. [29]

    Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their monte carlo estimates,

    I. M. Sobol’, “Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their monte carlo estimates,”Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, vol. 55, no. 1–3, pp. 271–280, 2001

    2001

  30. [30]

    Cachin, R

    C. Cachin, R. Guerraoui, and L. Rodrigues,Introduction to Reliable and Secure Distributed Programming, 2nd ed. Springer, 2011

    2011

  31. [31]

    Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony,

    C. Dwork, N. Lynch, and L. Stockmeyer, “Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony,”Journal of the ACM, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 288–323, 1988

    1988

  32. [32]

    The sybil attack,

    J. R. Douceur, “The sybil attack,” inProceedings of the First Interna- tional Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), 2002, pp. 251–260

    2002

  33. [33]

    Polkadot: Vision for a heterogeneous multi-chain frame- work,

    G. Wood, “Polkadot: Vision for a heterogeneous multi-chain frame- work,” Whitepaper, 2020

    2020

  34. [34]

    Hedera: A public hashgraph network for fair ordering of transactions,

    L. Baird, M. Harmon, and P. Madsen, “Hedera: A public hashgraph network for fair ordering of transactions,” Technical Report, 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    Solana: A new architecture for a high performance blockchain,

    A. Yakovenko, “Solana: A new architecture for a high performance blockchain,” Whitepaper, 2020

    2020

  36. [36]

    Who wins ethereum block building auctions and why?

    B. ¨Oz, D. Sui, T. Thiery, and F. Matthes, “Who wins ethereum block building auctions and why?” inAdvances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2024), 2024. APPENDIX Heterogeneous Validator Profiles Table XI lists the five validator profile types used in the fairness evaluation (Section VII) and their non-stake quality parameters. These profiles model heterogen...

    2024