Blockclique: scaling blockchains through transaction sharding in a multithreaded block graph

Forestier, Sébastien; Vodenicarevic, Damir; Laversanne-Finot, Adrien

doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.09029

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more recent work shows that this approach, which has been designed to avoid sharding, may work well even paired with it. This model, called blockclique [8], prescribes a division of nodes into "threads", which work in parallel, producing blocks that are organized in a DAG. This graph has to respect two internal rules: the blocks produced by a single thread constitute a proper blockchain ("thread incompatibility") and new blocks take into accounts blocks recently produced by other threads ("grandpa incompatibility") by referring to their parent's hashes.…”

Section: Blockcliquementioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey on Efficient Parallelization of Blockchain-based Smart Contracts

Meneghetti¹,

Parise²,

Sala³

et al. 2019

AETiC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main problem faced by smart contract platforms is the amount of time and computational power required to reach consensus. In a classical blockchain model, each operation is in fact performed by each node, both to update the status and to validate the results of the calculations performed by others. In this short survey we sketch some state-of-the-art approaches to obtain an efficient and scalable computation of smart contracts. Particular emphasis is given to sharding, a promising method that allows parallelization and therefore a more efficient management of the computational resources of the network.

show abstract

Section: Blockcliquementioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey on Efficient Parallelization of Blockchain-based Smart Contracts

Meneghetti¹,

Parise²,

Sala³

et al. 2019

AETiC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For keeping only partial order, we can use a DAG (directed acyclic graph). For example, each of [17,13,18,8,3] uses some sort of a DAG (implicitly or explicitly).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A simple solution is that transactions of the same "type", that might be conflicting, are allowed to be introduced only at a specific location in the graph, so they cannot appear concurrently at different locations. E.g., if our graph is indeed a set of parallel blockchains, then we can divide the transactions according to their source accounts, such that transactions of a specific account are allowed to appear only in blocks of a specific blockchain [13,8,6,9].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cryptocurrency with Fully Asynchronous Communication based on Banks and Democracy

Dan

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cryptocurrencies came to the world in the recent decade and attempted to offer a new order where the financial system is not governed by a centralized entity, and where you have complete control over your account without the need to trust strangers (governments and banks above all). However, cryptocurrency systems face many challenges that prevent them from being used as an everyday coin. In this paper we attempt to take one step forward by introducing a cryptocurrency system that has many important properties. Perhaps the most revolutionary property is its deterministic operation over a fully asynchronous communication network, which has sometimes been mistakenly considered to be impossible. By avoiding any temporal assumptions, we get a system that is robust against arbitrary delays in the network, and whose latency is only a function of the actual communication delay. The presented system is based on familiar concepts -banking and democracy. Our banks, just like normal banks, keep their clients' money and perform their clients' requests. However, because of the cryptographic scheme, your bank cannot do anything in your account without your permission and its entire operation is transparent so you don't have to trust it blindly. The democracy means that every operation performed by the banks (e.g., committing a client transaction) has to be accepted by a majority of the coin holders, in a way that resembles representative democracy where the banks are the representatives and where each client implicitly delegates his voting power (the sum of money in his account) to his bank. A client can switch banks at any moment, by simply applying a corresponding request to the new bank of his choice. The presented approach employs the advantages of centralization while still providing a completely trustless and decentralized system. By employing concepts from everyday life and attaining high throughput and low latency for committing transactions, the hope is that this paper will lay the foundations for a cryptocurrency that can be truly used as a practical coin on a daily basis.

show abstract

“…Because of this sequential block production, the throughput of sequential blockchains is limited by the block propagation times. In order to solve this scalability issue, many projects such as [YNHS20] or [FVLF18] have adopted a parallel architecture. The idea is to have several parallel instances of a sequential blockchain and a reconciliation mechanism that guarantees consistency among the parallel chains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defending against the nothing-at-stake problem in multi-threaded blockchains

Lys¹,

Forestier²,

Vodenicarevic³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In blockchain systems, the scarcity of a resource is used as a Sybil protection mechanism. In Proof-of-Work blockchains, that resource is computing power. In the event of a fork, the scarcity of this resource theoretically prevents miners from producing blocks on both branches of a fork. In Proofof-Stake blockchains, because that resource is a token stake, the computational cost of creating a block is negligible. In the event of a fork, and if no specific measures have been taken, rational block producers should extend both branches of the fork. In blockchains with sequential block production, a punishment mechanism known as slashing is often cited as a protection against the nothing-at-stake problem. However, in the context of a blockchain with parallel block production, it seems that slashing is not sufficient against the numerous divergence opportunities. In this paper, we propose a novel protection against the nothingat-stake problem that takes the most out of BFT and Nakamotobased consensus. By combining those approaches, we wish to scale up blockchains by allowing parallel block production without reconciliation.

show abstract

Blockclique: scaling blockchains through transaction sharding in a multithreaded block graph

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

A Survey on Efficient Parallelization of Blockchain-based Smart Contracts

A Survey on Efficient Parallelization of Blockchain-based Smart Contracts

Cryptocurrency with Fully Asynchronous Communication based on Banks and Democracy

Defending against the nothing-at-stake problem in multi-threaded blockchains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About