pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.03655 · v1 · pith:BP2XYOCTnew · submitted 2019-07-05 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.CR

StakeDag: Stake-based Consensus For Scalable Trustless Systems

Quan Nguyen , Andre Cronje , Michael Kong , Alex Kampa , George Samman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.CR
keywords stake-based consensusDAG consensuspBFTleaderless consensusasynchronous systemsproof-of-staketrustless systemsdistributed systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

A stake-based protocol S_φ uses participants' stake as validating weights to achieve pBFT in leaderless asynchronous DAGs.

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

This paper introduces the StakeDag model for proof-of-stake consensus inside DAG-based trustless systems. It separates ordinary users who carry no assumed trust from validators who carry established trust. It defines a family of stake-based protocols that run on a DAG structure, with the concrete protocol S_φ weighting each validator's votes by its stake to obtain practical Byzantine fault tolerance. The work supplies a general staking model that operates without leaders and without extra synchrony assumptions. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction aims to replace energy-heavy proof-of-work with stake while preserving safety in fully asynchronous settings.

Core claim

The paper claims that the stake-based protocol S_φ leverages participants' stake as validating weights to achieve more secure distributed systems with practical Byzantine fault tolerance in a leaderless asynchronous Directed Acyclic Graph, and presents a general model of staking for asynchronous DAG-based distributed systems.

What carries the argument

The stake-based protocol S_φ that assigns validating weights from stake amounts inside the leaderless asynchronous DAG to enforce pBFT properties.

If this is right

  • pBFT safety and liveness hold for the DAG once stake is used as validating weights.
  • The same construction supplies a general staking model applicable to any asynchronous DAG-based distributed system.
  • The protocol family operates without a leader and without extra synchrony assumptions.
  • Validators with higher stake receive proportionally higher weight in the consensus process.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the stake-to-weight mapping is accurate, the model could reduce the energy cost of consensus compared with proof-of-work systems.
  • The separation of users and validators suggests a hybrid trust model that might be tested in other distributed-ledger settings.
  • Performance under uneven stake distributions would be a natural next measurement to check whether the pBFT guarantees remain practical.

Load-bearing premise

Stake amounts can be reliably mapped to validating weights that deliver pBFT properties in a fully asynchronous leaderless DAG without additional synchrony or honesty assumptions on the validators.

What would settle it

An execution trace or simulation in which the protocol fails to satisfy pBFT safety or liveness once stake is used for weights, the system is fully asynchronous, and a Byzantine fraction of stake is controlled by faulty validators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.03655 by Alex Kampa, Andre Cronje, George Samman, Michael Kong, Quan Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A General Framework of StakeDag Protocols [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of DAG with users and validators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example of an S-OPERA chain in StakeDag. The validation scores of some selected blocks are shown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An Example of Flagtable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The steps for root selection in StakeDag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An Overview of Layering-based StakeDag Protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: StakeDag node structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Trustless systems, such as those blockchain enpowered, provide trust in the system regardless of the trust of its participants, who may be honest or malicious. Proof-of-stake (PoS) protocols and DAG-based approaches have emerged as a better alternative than the proof of work (PoW) for consensus. This paper introduces a new model, so-called \emph{\stakedag}, which aims for PoS consensus in a DAG-based trustless system. We address a general model of trustless system in which participants are distinguished by their stake or trust: users and validators. Users are normal participants with a no assumed trust and validators are high profile participants with an established trust. We then propose a new family of stake-based consensus protocols $\mathfrak{S}$, operating on the DAG as in the Lachesis protocol~\cite{lachesis01}. Specifically, we propose a stake-based protocol $S_\phi$ that leverages participants' stake as validating weights to achieve more secure distributed systems with practical Byzantine fault tolerance (pBFT) in leaderless asynchronous Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). We then present a general model of staking for asynchronous DAG-based distributed systems.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the StakeDag model for PoS consensus in DAG-based trustless systems, distinguishing users (no assumed trust) from validators (established trust). It proposes a family of stake-based protocols operating on DAGs like Lachesis, with a specific protocol S_φ that uses participants' stake as validating weights to achieve practical Byzantine fault tolerance (pBFT) in a leaderless asynchronous DAG, and presents a general model of staking for such systems.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work would be significant for enabling secure, scalable consensus in fully asynchronous, leaderless DAG systems using only stake-based weights without additional synchrony or honesty assumptions, potentially advancing beyond current PoS and DAG approaches.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The manuscript states that S_φ achieves pBFT in a leaderless asynchronous DAG but supplies no derivation, proof sketch, security argument, or evaluation; the central claim therefore lacks any supporting evidence in the provided text.
  2. Abstract: The proposal that stake can be mapped to validating weights delivering pBFT safety and liveness in a fully asynchronous leaderless DAG without additional assumptions contradicts the FLP impossibility result for deterministic consensus, yet no argument is given showing how the stake weighting evades this while remaining leaderless and async; the distinction between users and 'high profile' validators with 'established trust' risks smuggling an implicit honesty or synchrony assumption.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The notation for the StakeDag model and the family of protocols is introduced without a clear definition or relation to the general staking model mentioned at the end of the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed comments on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The manuscript states that S_φ achieves pBFT in a leaderless asynchronous DAG but supplies no derivation, proof sketch, security argument, or evaluation; the central claim therefore lacks any supporting evidence in the provided text.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract asserts the achievement of pBFT by S_φ without including a proof sketch or security argument within the text. The protocol is defined in the body of the paper based on the Lachesis DAG structure with stake as validating weights. To address this concern, we will add a section providing a security argument and proof outline demonstrating how S_φ achieves pBFT properties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract: The proposal that stake can be mapped to validating weights delivering pBFT safety and liveness in a fully asynchronous leaderless DAG without additional assumptions contradicts the FLP impossibility result for deterministic consensus, yet no argument is given showing how the stake weighting evades this while remaining leaderless and async; the distinction between users and 'high profile' validators with 'established trust' risks smuggling an implicit honesty or synchrony assumption.

    Authors: The model explicitly separates users (with no assumed trust) from validators (with established trust via stake). The stake weighting is intended to provide the fault tolerance thresholds for pBFT. We recognize that a clear explanation of how this evades the FLP result is necessary. In the revision, we will include a discussion clarifying the assumptions of the model and how the stake-based approach in the asynchronous DAG setting achieves the claimed properties without contradicting known impossibility results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; no derivations or equations present to reduce

full rationale

The paper proposes S_φ and family S operating on DAG 'as in the Lachesis protocol' but supplies no equations, parameter fittings, or derivation chain. Abstract and text contain only high-level model description distinguishing users/validators by stake/trust, with no self-definitional mappings, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to its own inputs by construction. Reference to lachesis01 is external and not shown to create equivalence within this manuscript. No steps meet the criteria for quoting a specific reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the claim rests on the unelaborated distinction between users and validators plus the unproven mapping of stake to validating weights that yields pBFT.

free parameters (1)
  • stake weights in S_φ
    Stake is used as validating weights; the precise mapping or threshold function is not specified in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Validators possess established trust distinct from users
    Abstract states validators are high-profile participants with established trust while users have no assumed trust.
  • ad hoc to paper pBFT properties hold under the proposed stake weighting in asynchronous leaderless DAG
    The central claim asserts pBFT achievement but provides no supporting argument or conditions.
invented entities (2)
  • StakeDag model no independent evidence
    purpose: General model of staking for asynchronous DAG-based distributed systems
    New framing introduced to combine PoS with DAG consensus.
  • S_φ protocol no independent evidence
    purpose: Specific stake-based consensus protocol using stake as validating weights
    The concrete protocol family member proposed to deliver pBFT.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5741 in / 1362 out tokens · 25259 ms · 2026-05-25T02:23:27.945773+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Stake-based selection : select a random peer fromn peers with a probability proportional to their stakeswi

    work page

  2. [2]

    Least used selection: select the peer with the lowest values offi ∗wi

    work page

  3. [3]

    Most used selection: select the peer with the highest values offi ∗wi

    work page

  4. [4]

    There are other possible ways to integrate stakes and stake-related criteria into a peer selection algorithm

    Balance selection: aim for a balanced distribution of selected peers of a node, based on the valuesfi ∗wi. There are other possible ways to integrate stakes and stake-related criteria into a peer selection algorithm. For example, we can define new algorithms based some other criteria, such as successful validation rates, total rewards, etc. 5.4 Peer synchr...

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Opera: Reasoning about continuous common knowledge in asynchronous distributed systems, 2018

    Sang-Min Choi, Jiho Park, Quan Nguyen, Kiyoung Jang, Hyunjoon Cheob, Yo-Sub Han, and Byung-Ik Ahn. Opera: Reasoning about continuous common knowledge in asynchronous distributed systems, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    The byzantine generals problem

    Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 4(3):382–401, July 1982

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy

    Melanie Swan. Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. O’Reilly Media, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Randomized protocols for asynchronous consensus

    James Aspnes. Randomized protocols for asynchronous consensus. Distributed Computing, 16(2-3):165–175, 2003

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    Paxos made simple

    Leslie Lamport et al. Paxos made simple. ACM Sigact News, 32(4):18–25, 2001

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process

    Michael J Fischer, Nancy A Lynch, and Michael S Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 32(2):374–382, 1985

    work page 1985

  11. [11]

    Practical byzantine fault tolerance

    Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. InProceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI ’99, pages 173–186, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1999. USENIX Association

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Zyzzyva: speculative byzantine fault tolerance

    Ramakrishna Kotla, Lorenzo Alvisi, Mike Dahlin, Allen Clement, and Edmund Wong. Zyzzyva: speculative byzantine fault tolerance. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 41(6):45–58, 2007

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    The honey badger of bft protocols

    Andrew Miller, Yu Xia, Kyle Croman, Elaine Shi, and Dawn Song. The honey badger of bft protocols. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pages 31–42. ACM, 2016

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, 2008

    Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, 2008

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake, 2012

    Scott Nadal Sunny King. Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake, 2012

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Dagcoin, 2015

    Sergio Demian Lerner. Dagcoin, 2015

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Delegated proof-of-stake (dpos), 2014

    Daniel Larimer. Delegated proof-of-stake (dpos), 2014

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Algorand: Scaling byzan- tine agreements for cryptocurrencies

    Yossi Gilad, Rotem Hemo, Silvio Micali, Georgios Vlachos, and Nickolai Zeldovich. Algorand: Scaling byzan- tine agreements for cryptocurrencies. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles , pages 51–68. ACM, 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol

    Yonatan Sompolinsky, Yoad Lewenberg, and Aviv Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2016:1159, 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Phantom, ghostdag: Two scalable blockdag protocols, 2008

    Yonatan Sompolinsky and Aviv Zohar. Phantom, ghostdag: Two scalable blockdag protocols, 2008

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    Protocol for asynchronous, reliable, secure and efficient consensus (parsec), 2018

    Fraser Hutchison Qi Ma Spandan Sharma Pierre Chevalier, Bartomiej Kamin ski. Protocol for asynchronous, reliable, secure and efficient consensus (parsec), 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Scaling Nakamoto Consensus to Thousands of Transactions per Second

    Chenxing Li, Peilun Li, Wei Xu, Fan Long, and Andrew Chi-chih Yao. Scaling nakamoto consensus to thousands of transactions per second. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03870, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    The tangle, 2017

    Serguei Popov. The tangle, 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Byteball: A decentralized system for storage and transfer of value, 2016

    Anton Churyumov. Byteball: A decentralized system for storage and transfer of value, 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Hashgraph consensus: fair, fast, byzantine fault tolerance

    Leemon Baird. Hashgraph consensus: fair, fast, byzantine fault tolerance. Technical report, 2016

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Fantom: A scalable framework for asynchronous distributed systems

    Sang-Min Choi, Jiho Park, Quan Nguyen, and Andre Cronje. Fantom: A scalable framework for asynchronous distributed systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.10360, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    ONLAY: Online Layering for scalable asynchronous BFT system

    Quan Nguyen and Andre Cronje. Onlay: Online layering for scalable asynchronous bft system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04867, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  28. [28]

    Concurrent common knowledge: defining agreement for asynchronous systems

    Prakash Panangaden and Kim Taylor. Concurrent common knowledge: defining agreement for asynchronous systems. Distributed Computing, 6(2):73–93, 1992

    work page 1992

  29. [29]

    Fruitchains: A fair blockchain

    Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 315–324. ACM, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

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

    Sunny King and Scott Nadal. Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. 19, 2012

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Blackcoin’s proof-of-stake protocol v2

    Pavel Vasin. Blackcoin’s proof-of-stake protocol v2. URL: https://blackcoin.co/blackcoin-pos-protocol-v2- whitepaper.pdf, 71, 2014

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Cryptocurrencies without proof of work

    Iddo Bentov, Ariel Gabizon, and Alex Mizrahi. Cryptocurrencies without proof of work. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 142–157. Springer, 2016. 31 A PREPRINT - J ULY 9, 2019

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Tendermint: Consensus without mining

    Jae Kwon. Tendermint: Consensus without mining. https://tendermint.com/static/docs/tendermint.pdf, 2014

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Algorand

    Jing Chen and Silvio Micali. ALGORAND: the efficient and democratic ledger. CoRR, abs/1607.01341, 2016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget

    Buterin Vitalik and Griffith Virgil. Casper the friendly finality gadget. CoRR, abs/1710.09437, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Eos.io technical white paper

    EOS. Eos.io technical white paper

    work page

  37. [37]

    Steem white paper

    Steem. Steem white paper

    work page

  38. [38]

    Delegated proof-of-stake consensus

    BitShares. Delegated proof-of-stake consensus

    work page

  39. [39]

    Ark whitepaper

    The Ark Crew. Ark whitepaper

    work page

  40. [40]

    Proof-of-work vs proof-of-stake: A comparative analysis and an approach to blockchain consensus mechanism

    Husneara Hamid Sheikh Sheikh, Rahima Meer Rahima Azmathullah, and FAIZA RIZW AN RIZW ANUL HAQUE. Proof-of-work vs proof-of-stake: A comparative analysis and an approach to blockchain consensus mechanism. 2018

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Blockchain and iot integration: A systematic survey

    Alfonso Panarello, Nachiket Tapas, Giovanni Merlino, Francesco Longo, and Antonio Puliafito. Blockchain and iot integration: A systematic survey. Sensors, 18(8):2575, 2018

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Parity: Next generation ethereum browser

    Ethcore. Parity: Next generation ethereum browser

    work page

  43. [43]

    Raiblocks: A feeless distributed cryptocurrency network, 2017

    Colin LeMahieu. Raiblocks: A feeless distributed cryptocurrency network, 2017

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Blockmania: from block dags to consensus, 2018

    George Danezis and David Hrycyszyn. Blockmania: from block dags to consensus, 2018

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Digraphs: theory, algorithms and applications

    Jørgen Bang-Jensen and Gregory Z Gutin. Digraphs: theory, algorithms and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    Algorithms

    Robert Sedgewick and Kevin Wayne. Algorithms. Addison-Wesley Professional, 4th edition, 2011

    work page 2011

  47. [47]

    Data Structures and Algorithms 2: Graph Algorithms and NP-Completeness , volume 2 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science

    Kurt Mehlhorn. Data Structures and Algorithms 2: Graph Algorithms and NP-Completeness , volume 2 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, 1984

    work page 1984

  48. [48]

    E. G. Coffman, Jr. and R. L. Graham. Optimal scheduling for two-processor systems. Acta Inf., 1(3):200–213, September 1972

    work page 1972

  49. [49]

    happened before

    Jeremy Spinrad. Worst-case analysis of a scheduling algorithm. Oper. Res. Lett., 4(1):9–11, May 1985. 32 A PREPRINT - J ULY 9, 2019 9 Appendix This section gives further details about the StakeDag protocol. We present the formal semantics of Sφ using the concurrent common knowledge that can be applied to a generic model of DAG-based PoS approaches, and th...

    work page 1985