Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 55 references

ScaloWork: Useful Proof-of-Work with Distributed Pool Mining

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ScaloWork replaces hash-based Bitcoin mining with minimum dominating set puzzles and proves the scheme as secure as hash-based proof-of-work.

desk verdict ScaloWork is a genuine engineering extension of Chrisimos with a clean per-pool isomorphism idea, but its headline security claim rests on an unproven practical hardness of graph isomorphism for scale-free instances and the accepted solution bound may not be attainable by the prescribed greedy algorithm. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14328 v1 pith:N422TCYO submitted 2025-04-19 cs.CR cs.ET

Diptendu Chatterjee , Avishek Majumder , Subhra Mazumdar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.ET
keywords BitcoinProof-of-WorkProof-of-Useful-WorkMinimumDominatingSetGraphIsomorphismDistributedPoolMiningFree-riderProblemNP-Complete
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

ScaloWork is a proof-of-useful-work framework that replaces the hash puzzle in a Bitcoin-style blockchain with the task of finding a small dominating set—the smallest set of vertices that covers every node of a graph—on real-world network instances. It claims that this mining work is genuinely useful, because utility companies can read the dominating set directly from the mined block, and that the protocol is 'as secure as hash-based PoW'. To protect miners from solution stealing, each pool receives a different isomorphic copy of the same graph, so all pools face equal-hardness instances while an attacker cannot cheaply translate another pool's solution. The framework also supports distributed pool mining through a distributed greedy algorithm, which makes large graphs tractable and lets pool managers detect free-riders who submit useless shares. If the claims hold, blockchain mining energy would produce usable solutions to minimum dominating set problems instead of wasting power on hashes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of isomorphic problem instances with a distributed greedy dominating-set algorithm. A minimum dominating set is the smallest subset of vertices such that every vertex is either in the subset or adjacent to one of its members. The utility company submits z isomorphic copies (same graph with relabeled vertices) of its instance, and a pool's block header selects which copy it mines deterministically; the paper argues from the n! relabeling space and the best-known quasi-polynomial isomorphism algorithm that no pool can recover the mapping within the block interval TG_max, so one pool cannot steal another's solution. Miners in a pool run a greedy heuristic that repeatedly adds the highest-span vertex (the node covering the most uncovered vertices within distance two), giving a ln Δ-approximation and making each miner's contribution independently checkable. The framework surrounds this with committee-signed graph instances, a lookup table that sets TG_max from graph size and degree, and a chain-selection rule that prefers the chain with more accumulated work, where work is graph size times the ratio of the bound to the submitted dominating set size.

What would settle it

Take pairs of isomorphic scale-free graphs with the vertex counts and average degrees used in the experiments (100 thousand to 5 million vertices, average degrees 50–100), reveal the dominating set of one member, and run a modern graph-isomorphism or canonical-labeling solver to recover the mapping and translate the dominating set to the other member; record the wall-clock time against the corresponding TG_max. If the translation time is routinely below TG_max, the paper's claim that stealing is negligible is empirically refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a useful proof-of-work based on the minimum dominating set (MDS) problem, with isomorphic per-pool instances and a distributed greedy pool-mining protocol, is as secure as hash-based PoW while solving several problems that block earlier MDS-based systems. Each mining pool is assigned an isomorphic copy of a graph supplied by a utility company; the pool that returns the smallest valid dominating set within a block interval wins the block and the reward. Because the instances are isomorphic, every pool faces the same hardness, and because the utility company holds the mapping, the returned dominating set is directly extractable as a solution for the original graph—the paper's answer to Chrisimos's extractability problem. The paper further claims that the distributed greedy algorithm removes free-riders, since every miner's contribution is a verifiable part of the solution, and that experiments show ScaloWork scales to graphs of millions of nodes with block generation times far below Chrisimos. Theorems 4 and 5 assert that recovering the isomorphism between two instances, or translating another pool's dominating set from one instance to another, has negligible probability within the block interval.

Load-bearing premise

The defense against solution stealing assumes that no mining pool can recover the relabeling between two publicly available isomorphic graph instances within the block interval time; if practical graph-isomorphism or canonical-labeling tools solve these instances faster than that, the security argument fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ScaloWork is as secure as hash-based PoW, the same Nakamoto-style consensus frame can run on useful computation: honest majority, fork resolution by accumulated work, and block confirmations are preserved.
  • Mining pools can be rewarded by solution quality and verifiable participation, so a miner cannot claim a share with fake work; free-rider detection becomes a property of the consensus protocol.
  • Utility companies can obtain minimum dominating set solutions for their network instances directly from the public blockchain, giving real-world applications such as sensor coverage, rumor containment, and transmission monitoring a subsidized computation service.
  • The block interval time can be tuned through the lookup table, allowing the difficulty of the mining puzzle to be adjusted by graph size and average degree rather than by a hash target.
  • Because each pool mines a distinct instance, the per-block workload remains equal across pools even when many pools compete, avoiding the topology advantages that Chrisimos's probabilistic extension creates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The security proof rests on the hardness of graph isomorphism for the specific scale-free instances; since off-the-shelf isomorphism and canonical-labeling tools are fast on structured graphs, the negligible-probability claim should be tested empirically on the paper's generated graphs rather than taken from the n! bound alone.
  • The performance claim is measured in a single-machine, 48-thread simulation of pool members; a real deployment must add network latency, message loss, and Byzantine miners, so the reported 'outperforms Chrisimos in all aspects' should be read as a laboratory result until a multi-pool testbed is run.
  • The same framework could carry other NP-complete problems with polynomial-time verification, such as clique or graph coloring, as the paper mentions; the key requirement is a supply of instances for which isomorphism recovery stays hard and solutions remain practically useful.
  • The chain-selection rule's work metric weights solution quality against graph size; one unexplored consequence is that pools may be incentivized to mine larger graphs or manipulate graph parameters if the reward formula does not align hardness with payment, a game-theoretic question the paper leaves open.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. ScaloWork is a proof-of-useful-work framework that proposes to replace Bitcoin's hash-based PoW with computation of minimum dominating sets (MDS) on large graph instances. Each mining pool receives a distinct isomorphic instance of the same graph, computes a dominating set via a distributed greedy algorithm, and the best solution within a time limit determined by a lookup table wins the block. The paper claims that the scheme is as secure as hash-based PoW, provides solution extractability, eliminates free-riders, and outperforms the Chrisimos protocol in scalability and efficiency. The paper presents a security analysis and experiments on synthetic Barabási-Albert and Erdős-Rényi graphs.

Significance. The proposed direction is timely: reusing PoW computation for useful optimization problems is an active research area, and giving each pool a unique isomorphic instance is a reasonable approach to deterring solution stealing. The paper also contributes a comparative experimental study against Chrisimos and a prototype implementation. However, the central claims are not substantiated by the current analysis. The liveness of the protocol depends on unproved assumptions about the greedy algorithm's solution quality and the sufficiency of the block-time estimate, while the security argument relies on a graph-isomorphism hardness assumption that the paper's own Theorem 5 undermines for scale-free instances. These are load-bearing gaps, not presentation issues.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2 (Algorithm 1) and Theorem 2] Algorithm 1 only accepts a dominating set of size at most k = n(1+ln(1+δ))/(1+δ). Theorem 2 guarantees only a ln Δ approximation for Algorithm 3, and no proof is given that the greedy algorithm can find a set of size ≤ k for the benchmark graphs. If no such set is found within T_G^max, the pool aborts, so the protocol can stall even when all pools are honest. The paper needs either a proof that Algorithm 3 meets the Alon-Spencer bound on the relevant instances or a different acceptance criterion.
  2. [Section 3.3, Lemma 1] Lemma 1 is circular: T_G^max is set to lτ with l>1 using times from the authors' own greedy implementation, and for new instances scaled by |E''||V''| / (|E'||V'|). The proof concludes the time is sufficient because the lookup table was made with the greedy heuristic, but a multiple of a measured time is not a proof that the same heuristic will complete on a new instance within that limit. This directly affects liveness and should be replaced by a formal or empirically validated hardness model.
  3. [Section 4.1, Theorems 4 and 5] The security against solution stealing rests on the assumption that no pool can compute an isomorphism between two public isomorphic instances within T_G^max. The proof only counts n! mappings and cites worst-case quasi-polynomial algorithms, ignoring practical canonical-labeling tools. Theorem 5 explicitly concedes that if the high-degree vertices have distinct degrees, 'the mapping is straightforward'; Barabási-Albert scale-free graphs have exactly this property. Since all isomorphic instances are public before mining, an adversary can precompute canonical forms and translate another pool's dominating set immediately. The negligible-probability claim is not supported for the paper's own instance class.
  4. [Section 4.1, Theorem 3] The statement that two pools will never receive the same graph instance is over-strong. The instance index is computed as H(h⟨MR,τ'⟩||hBprev) mod z; for z instances, two distinct preimages produce the same index with probability about 1/z, which is not negligible for the pool counts discussed in the paper. The protocol must handle index collisions explicitly.
  5. [Section 3.2, free-rider resistant pool mining] The claim that ScaloWork eliminates free-riders is not backed by a concrete mechanism. The paper says that from the lack of information on a free rider's assigned vertices it will be 'easy to point out' and penalize free-riders, but no protocol or analysis describes how the pool manager verifies individual contributions, distributes rewards, or detects and punishes a miner who withholds span updates. This is a central contribution and needs a complete specification.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.3] The bilinear pairing is described as 'degerate'; the intended term is 'non-degenerate'.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 1 and text] The caption says Chrisimos stops at node count 100000 due to the 15-minute cutoff, while the text reports 197 minutes at 500000 nodes; these statements are inconsistent.
  3. [Section 2.5 and Algorithm 2] The notation for committee public keys is inconsistent: Algorithm 2 uses 'pk mt' after earlier defining a committee of size |cm|.
  4. [Section 4.2] Section 3.1 assumes a partially synchronous communication model, but Section 4.2 says safety and liveness are proved in the synchronous model; the mismatch should be addressed.
  5. [Lemma 3] The claim that the greedy heuristic takes O(|V|) time should be clarified; Algorithm 3 is a distributed algorithm with O(n) rounds, and the relationship between rounds and wall-clock time is not immediate.
  6. [Section 5, storage overhead] The ScaloWork storage total is given as 2K|E| edges, but each isomorphic instance has |E| edges; the arithmetic should be checked.
  7. [Theorem 4] The statement that n=100 gives more than 2^600 possibilities appears to overestimate; log2(100!) is about 525, so the bound should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One self-referential block-interval lemma; the central security and performance claims rest on independent hardness results and benchmarks.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, 'Constructing the Lookup Table', and Lemma 1]
    "To ensure that the some mining pool will definitely return a dominating set of cardinality less than the upper bound, we propose to set the block interval time T G max to lτ where l∈ R+, l> 1. ... Lemma 1. For a graph instance G, the block time interval T G max is sufficient for adding the block to the Blockchain. Proof. ... If the block generation time is τ (if the graph instance is already present in the lookup table), we set T G max to lτ : l>1."

    Lemma 1's conclusion ('TG_max is sufficient') is entailed by the definition of TG_max: the paper sets TG_max = lτ with l>1, where τ is the runtime of the authors' own greedy solver on the same instance. The proof then invokes that definition plus the fact that the lookup table was built with the greedy heuristic. No bound on an arbitrary pool's solution time is derived; 'sufficiency' is true by construction for the solver that generated τ. This is a self-referential parameter setting, not an independent result, and it does not convert the measured τ into a prediction about other miners. The free multiplier l is chosen, not derived.

full rationale

ScaloWork's headline security claim ('as secure as hash-based PoW') rests on the assumed hardness of graph isomorphism for the public isomorphic instances (Theorems 4 and 5), supported by citations to Babai and Helfgott plus an n! search-space argument. Those are external, non-fitted hardness results, not quantities fitted to the authors' data; the fact that the argument may be inadequate for scale-free graphs (the paper itself concedes that a straightforward mapping exists when high-degree vertices have distinct degrees) is a correctness risk, not circularity. The performance comparison against Chrisimos is an independent benchmark against a published baseline, including a formula from the authors' prior paper, but the comparison itself is not load-bearing for the security proof. The one genuinely self-referential step is Lemma 1 / the lookup-table construction: TG_max is defined as l times the runtime of the paper's own greedy implementation, so the lemma that TG_max is 'sufficient' is true by definition. That is a local, non-security-critical tautology; the central security and performance claims retain independent content. Hence the overall circularity score is low (2).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's central claims rely on: (1) the Alon-Spencer existence bound being achievable by the prescribed greedy algorithm, which is not proven; (2) the hardness of graph isomorphism for scale-free graphs, which is assumed; (3) the lookup-table time estimation with a free scaling factor l; and (4) hand-chosen difficulty thresholds. These are loads the reader pays for, not derived in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Block interval time scaling factor l = l > 1 (exact value not specified)
    Section 3.3 sets T_G_max = l*tau for a benchmark instance, with l a free multiplier chosen to guarantee a pool can find a solution; no derivation fixes l.
  • Graph hardness thresholds = minimum vertex count 50000, average degree 50-150
    Section 3.2 defines permissible graph instances by these hand-chosen ranges, used to reject trivial instances.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Alon-Spencer theorem: every n-vertex graph with minimum degree delta has a dominating set of size at most n(1+ln(1+delta))/(1+delta).
    Section 2.2, Theorem 1; used to set the acceptance bound k for valid block solutions.
  • domain assumption Graph isomorphism is computationally hard on general graphs; the best known algorithm is quasi-polynomial.
    Section 2.1 and Theorems 4-5; the protocol assumes no mining pool can map isomorphic instances within the block time.
  • ad hoc to paper The distributed greedy algorithm (Algorithm 3) can find a dominating set within the Alon-Spencer bound k in O(n) rounds.
    No theorem proves this; standard greedy MDS algorithms only guarantee an ln(delta) approximation, which can be larger than k. Algorithm 1 requires S'_G <= k.
  • ad hoc to paper Scale-free graph instances are hard instances for graph isomorphism.
    Theorems 4-5 argue from the n! search space and assume scale-free structure does not make matching easy; the paper does not test this against practical isomorphism solvers.
  • ad hoc to paper The block interval time for a new instance can be estimated by scaling a lookup-table entry by |E|*|V| ratio.
    Section 3.3 introduces the scaling formula without theoretical justification; it assumes time scales linearly with |E|*|V|.
  • domain assumption Honest miners control more than 50% of computational power and follow the protocol; the auditing committee has at least 2/3 honest members; communication is partially synchronous with known bound eta.
    Section 3.1 system model; standard assumptions for Bitcoin-like security and BFT committee consensus.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ScaloWork: Useful Proof-of-Work with Distributed Pool Mining." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N422TCYO

@misc{pith2026250414328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ScaloWork: Useful Proof-of-Work with Distributed Pool Mining},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N422TCYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14328}
}
read the original abstract

Bitcoin blockchain uses hash-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) that prevents unwanted participants from hogging the network resources. Anyone entering the mining game has to prove that they have expended a specific amount of computational power. However, the most popular Bitcoin blockchain consumes 175.87 TWh of electrical energy annually, and most of this energy is wasted on hash calculations, which serve no additional purpose. Several studies have explored re-purposing the wasted energy by replacing the hash function with meaningful computational problems that have practical applications. Minimum Dominating Set (MDS) in networks has numerous real-life applications. Building on this concept, Chrisimos [TrustCom '23] was proposed to replace hash-based PoW with the computation of a dominating set on real-life graph instances. However, Chrisimos has several drawbacks regarding efficiency and solution quality. This work presents a new framework for Useful PoW, ScaloWork, that decides the block proposer for the Bitcoin blockchain based on the solution for the dominating set problem. ScaloWork relies on the property of graph isomorphism and guarantees solution extractability. We also propose a distributed approach for calculating the dominating set, allowing miners to collaborate in a pool. This enables ScaloWork to handle larger graphs relevant to real-life applications, thereby enhancing scalability. Our framework also eliminates the problem of free-riders, ensuring fairness in the distribution of block rewards. We perform a detailed security analysis of our framework and prove our scheme as secure as hash-based PoW. We implement a prototype of our framework, and the results show that our system outperforms Chrisimos in all aspects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14328 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparing block generation time and verification time for Chrisimos and ScaloWork. We set the cut-off for run time to 15 mins. Thus, the block generation time for Chrisimos in 1(a), (b), and (c) stops at node count 100000. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hashcash-a denial of service counter-measure,

    A. Back et al., “Hashcash-a denial of service counter-measure,” 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    O’Reilly Media, Inc

    A. M. Antonopoulos, Mastering Bitcoin: unlocking digital cryptocurrencies. " O’Reilly Media, Inc.", 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Bitcoin energy consumption worldwide from february 2017 to december 8, 2024,

    DIGICONOMIST, “Bitcoin energy consumption worldwide from february 2017 to december 8, 2024,” https: //www.statista.com/statistics/881472/worldwide-bitcoin-energy-consumption/, December 2024

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    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, August, vol. 19, no. 1, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    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 Advances in Cryptology–CRYPTO 2017: 37th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 20–24, 2017, Proceedings, Part I. Springer, 2017, pp. 357–388

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Pbft vs proof-of-authority: Applying the cap theorem to permissioned blockchain,

    S. De Angelis, L. Aniello, R. Baldoni, F. Lombardi, A. Margheri, V . Sassone et al., “Pbft vs proof-of-authority: Applying the cap theorem to permissioned blockchain,” CEUR-WS, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Proofs of space,

    S. Dziembowski, S. Faust, V . Kolmogorov, and K. Pietrzak, “Proofs of space,” in Advances in Cryptology– CRYPTO 2015: 35th Annual Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 16-20, 2015, Proceed- ings, Part II. Springer, 2015, pp. 585–605

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Spacemint: A cryptocurrency based on proofs of space,

    S. Park, A. Kwon, G. Fuchsbauer, P. Gaži, J. Alwen, and K. Pietrzak, “Spacemint: A cryptocurrency based on proofs of space,” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security: 22nd International Conference, FC 2018, Nieuwpoort, Curaçao, February 26–March 2, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 22. Springer, 2018, pp. 480–499

    work page 2018

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Exploring proof of capacity and proof of spacetime: The exciting future of blockchain consensus mechanisms,

    L. de Jong, “Exploring proof of capacity and proof of spacetime: The exciting future of blockchain consensus mechanisms,” https://onxrp.com/proof-of-capacity-and-proof-of-spacetime/, April 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Proof-of-burn,

    K. Karantias, A. Kiayias, and D. Zindros, “Proof-of-burn,” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security: 24th International Conference, FC 2020, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, February 10–14, 2020 Revised Selected Papers

    2020

  3. [11]

    Eager to work: Bitcoin switch to proof-of-stake remains unlikely,

    P. Jha, “Eager to work: Bitcoin switch to proof-of-stake remains unlikely,” https://cointelegraph.com/news/ eager-to-work-bitcoin-switch-to-proof-of-stake-remains-unlikely, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

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

    S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” Decentralized business review, p. 21260, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Can we afford integrity by proof- of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency,

    J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Böhme, “Can we afford integrity by proof- of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency,” The economics of information security and privacy , pp. 135–156, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Proofs of work from worst-case assumptions,

    M. Ball, A. Rosen, M. Sabin, and P. N. Vasudevan, “Proofs of work from worst-case assumptions,” in Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2018, H. Shacham and A. Boldyreva, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 789–819

    2018

  7. [15]

    Conquering generals: an np-hard proof of useful work,

    A. F. Loe and E. A. Quaglia, “Conquering generals: an np-hard proof of useful work,” in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains for Distributed Systems, 2018, pp. 54–59

    2018

  8. [16]

    Proofs of useless work–positive and negative results for wasteless mining systems,

    M. Dotan and S. Tochner, “Proofs of useless work–positive and negative results for wasteless mining systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01046, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Difficulty scaling in proof of work for decentralized problem solving,

    P. Philippopoulos, A. Ricottone, and C. G. Oliver, “Difficulty scaling in proof of work for decentralized problem solving,” Ledger, vol. 5, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Axechain: A secure and decentralized blockchain for solving easily-verifiable problems,

    W. Zheng, X. Chen, Z. Zheng, X. Luo, and J. Cui, “Axechain: A secure and decentralized blockchain for solving easily-verifiable problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.13999, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ofelimos: Combinatorial optimization via proof-of- useful-work: A provably secure blockchain protocol,

    M. Fitzi, A. Kiayias, G. Panagiotakos, and A. Russell, “Ofelimos: Combinatorial optimization via proof-of- useful-work: A provably secure blockchain protocol,” in Advances in Cryptology–CRYPTO 2022: 42nd Annual International Cryptology Conference, CRYPTO 2022, Santa Barbara, C...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Proof- of-useful-work: Blockchain mining by solving real-life optimization problems,

    M. Todorovi ´c, L. Matijevi´c, D. Ramljak, T. Davidovi´c, D. Uroševi´c, T. Jakši´c Krüger, and ´DJ. Jovanovi´c, “Proof- of-useful-work: Blockchain mining by solving real-life optimization problems,” Symmetry, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 1831, 2022. 15 A PREPRINT - A PRIL 22, 2025

    2022

  13. [21]

    A study on domination in vague incidence graph and its application in medical sciences,

    Y . Rao, S. Kosari, Z. Shao, R. Cai, and L. Xinyue, “A study on domination in vague incidence graph and its application in medical sciences,” Symmetry, vol. 12, no. 11, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/11/1885

    2020

  14. [22]

    Proposal for a fully decentralized blockchain and proof-of- work algorithm for solving np-complete problems,

    C. G. Oliver, A. Ricottone, and P. Philippopoulos, “Proposal for a fully decentralized blockchain and proof-of- work algorithm for solving np-complete problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.09419, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Domination problems in social networks,

    G. Wang, “Domination problems in social networks,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Queensland, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Springer, 2020, pp. 523–540

    2020

  17. [25]

    On distributed algorithms for minimum dominating set problem, from theory to application,

    S. Alipour, E. Futuhi, and S. Karimi, “On distributed algorithms for minimum dominating set problem, from theory to application,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04883, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Domination in graphs applied to electric power networks,

    T. W. Haynes, S. M. Hedetniemi, S. T. Hedetniemi, and M. A. Henning, “Domination in graphs applied to electric power networks,” SIAM journal on discrete mathematics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 519–529, 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    Minimum connected dominating set based rsu allocation for smartcloud vehicles in vanet,

    A. Chinnasamy, B. Sivakumar, P. Selvakumari, and A. Suresh, “Minimum connected dominating set based rsu allocation for smartcloud vehicles in vanet,” Cluster Computing, vol. 22, pp. 12 795–12 804, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Chrisimos: A useful proof-of-work for finding minimal dominat- ing set of a graph,

    D. Chatterjee, P. Banerjee, and S. Mazumdar, “Chrisimos: A useful proof-of-work for finding minimal dominat- ing set of a graph,” in 2023 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), 2023, pp. 1332–1339

    2023

  21. [29]

    Primecoin: Cryptocurrency with prime number proof-of-work,

    S. King, “Primecoin: Cryptocurrency with prime number proof-of-work,” July 7th, vol. 1, no. 6, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Dlchain: A covert channel over blockchain based on dynamic labels,

    J. Tian, G. Gou, C. Liu, Y . Chen, G. Xiong, and Z. Li, “Dlchain: A covert channel over blockchain based on dynamic labels,” in Information and Communications Security: 21st International Conference, ICICS 2019, Beijing, China, December 15–17, 2019, Revised Selected Papers 21....

    2019

  23. [31]

    Coin. ai: A proof-of-useful-work scheme for blockchain-based distributed deep learning,

    A. Baldominos and Y . Saez, “Coin. ai: A proof-of-useful-work scheme for blockchain-based distributed deep learning,” Entropy, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 723, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    The graph isomorphism problem,

    S. Fortin, “The graph isomorphism problem,” 1996

    1996

  25. [33]

    Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time,

    L. Babai, “Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time,” in Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM sym- posium on Theory of Computing, 2016, pp. 684–697

    2016

  26. [34]

    Graph isomorphisms in quasi-polynomial time,

    H. A. Helfgott, “Graph isomorphisms in quasi-polynomial time,” Séminaire BOURBAKI, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Approximation hardness of dominating set problems,

    M. Chlebík and J. Chlebíková, “Approximation hardness of dominating set problems,” inAlgorithms – ESA 2004, S. Albers and T. Radzik, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 192–203

    2004

  28. [36]

    Computers and intractability,

    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, “Computers and intractability,” A Guide to the, 1979

    1979

  29. [37]

    Alon and J

    N. Alon and J. H. Spencer, The probabilistic method. John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Bls signature scheme,

    D. Boneh, S. Gorbunov, H. Wee, and Z. Zhang, “Bls signature scheme,” Technical Report draft-boneh-bls- signature-00, Internet Engineering Task Force, Tech. Rep., 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Random oracles are practical: A paradigm for designing efficient protocols,

    M. Bellare and P. Rogaway, “Random oracles are practical: A paradigm for designing efficient protocols,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 1993, pp. 62–73

    1993

  32. [40]

    Aggregate and verifiably encrypted signatures from bilinear maps,

    D. Boneh, C. Gentry, B. Lynn, and H. Shacham, “Aggregate and verifiably encrypted signatures from bilinear maps,” in Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2003: International Conference on the Theory and Appli- cations of Cryptographic Techniques, Warsaw, Poland, May 4–8, 2003 Proc...

    2003

  33. [41]

    A deep dive into bitcoin mining pools: An empirical analysis of mining shares,

    M. Romiti, A. Judmayer, A. Zamyatin, and B. Haslhofer, “A deep dive into bitcoin mining pools: An empirical analysis of mining shares,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05999, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  34. [42]

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

    W. Wang, D. T. Hoang, P. Hu, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, P. Wang, Y . Wen, and D. I. Kim, “A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining strategy management in blockchain networks,” Ieee Access, vol. 7, pp. 22 328–22 370, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions,

    O. Schrijvers, J. Bonneau, D. Boneh, and T. Roughgarden, “Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions,” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security: 20th International Conference, FC 2016, Christ Church, Barbados, February 22–26, 2016, Revised Selected Pape...

    2016

  36. [44]

    Socially optimal mining pools,

    B. Fisch, R. Pass, and A. Shelat, “Socially optimal mining pools,” in Web and Internet Economics: 13th Inter- national Conference, WINE 2017, Bangalore, India, December 17–20, 2017, Proceedings 13. Springer, 2017, pp. 205–218

    2017

  37. [45]

    Game-theoretic analysis of ddos attacks against bitcoin mining pools,

    B. Johnson, A. Laszka, J. Grossklags, M. Vasek, and T. Moore, “Game-theoretic analysis of ddos attacks against bitcoin mining pools,” inFinancial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2014 Workshops, BITCOIN and WAHC 2014, Christ Church, Barbados, March 7, 2014, Revised Selected ...

    2014

  38. [46]

    The miner’s dilemma,

    I. Eyal, “The miner’s dilemma,” in 2015 IEEE symposium on security and privacy. IEEE, 2015, pp. 89–103

    2015

  39. [47]

    Enhancing bitcoin security and perfor- mance with strong consistency via collective signing,

    E. K. Kogias, P. Jovanovic, N. Gailly, I. Khoffi, L. Gasser, and B. Ford, “Enhancing bitcoin security and perfor- mance with strong consistency via collective signing,” in 25th usenix security symposium (usenix security 16) , 2016, pp. 279–296. 16 A PREPRINT - A PRIL 22, 2025

    2016

  40. [48]

    Controlling the difficulty of combinatorial optimization problems for fair proof-of-useful-work-based blockchain consensus protocol,

    U. Maleš, D. Ramljak, T. Jakši ´c Krüger, T. Davidovi ´c, D. Ostoji ´c, and A. Haridas, “Controlling the difficulty of combinatorial optimization problems for fair proof-of-useful-work-based blockchain consensus protocol,” Symmetry, vol. 15, no. 1, 2023. [Online]. Available: h...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Distributed algorithms: Chapter 12 - mutual exclusion,

    N. A. Lynch, “Distributed algorithms: Chapter 12 - mutual exclusion,” Lecture Notes, ETH Zurich, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://disco.ethz.ch/courses/ss04/distcomp/lecture/chapter12.pdf

    2004

  42. [50]

    What is the purpose of mining pools and how do they work?

    Bitpanda Academy, “What is the purpose of mining pools and how do they work?” 2024, accessed: 2024-06-16. [Online]. Available: https://www.bitpanda.com/academy/en/lessons/ what-is-the-purpose-of-mining-pools-and-how-do-they-work/

    2024

  43. [51]

    Short paper: An empirical analysis of blockchain forks in bitcoin,

    T. Neudecker and H. Hartenstein, “Short paper: An empirical analysis of blockchain forks in bitcoin,” in Finan- cial Cryptography and Data Security: 23rd International Conference, FC 2019, Frigate Bay, St. Kitts and Nevis, February 18–22, 2019, Revised Selected Papers 23. Spri...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Comprehensive overview of selfish mining and double spending attack countermeasures,

    K. Nicolas, Y . Wang, and G. C. Giakos, “Comprehensive overview of selfish mining and double spending attack countermeasures,” in 2019 IEEE 40th Sarnoff Symposium. IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  45. [53]

    Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin,

    A. Sapirshtein, Y . Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar, “Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin,” inFinancial Cryp- tography and Data Security: 20th International Conference, FC 2016, Christ Church, Barbados, February 22– 26, 2016, Revised Selected Papers 20. Springer, 2017, pp. 515–532

    2016

  46. [54]

    Statistical mechanics of complex networks,

    R. Albert and A.-L. Barabási, “Statistical mechanics of complex networks,” Reviews of modern physics, vol. 74, no. 1, p. 47, 2002

    2002

  47. [55]

    Community structure and scale-free collections of erd˝os-rényi graphs,

    C. Seshadhri, T. G. Kolda, and A. Pinar, “Community structure and scale-free collections of erd˝os-rényi graphs,” Physical Review E, vol. 85, no. 5, p. 056109, 2012. 17

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.