SyncAttack: Double-spending in Bitcoin Without Mining Power
Muhammad Saad, Songqing Chen, David Mohaisen
Abstract
The existing Bitcoin security research has mainly followed the security models in [22, 35], which stipulate that an adversary controls some mining power in order to violate the blockchain consistency property (i.e., through a double-spend attack). These models, however, largely overlooked the impact of the realistic network synchronization, which can be manipulated given the permissionless nature of the network. In this paper, we revisit the security of Bitcoin blockchain by incorporating the network synchronization into the security model and evaluating that in practice. Towards this goal, we propose the ideal functionality for the Bitcoin network synchronization and specify bounds on the network outdegree and the block propagation delay in order to preserve the consistency property. By contrasting the ideal functionality against measurements, we find deteriorating network synchronization reported by Bitnodes and a notable churn rate with 10% of the nodes arriving and departing from the network daily. Motivated by these findings, we propose SyncAttack, an attack that allows an adversary to violate the Bitcoin blockchain consistency property and double-spend without using any mining power. Moreover, during our measurements, we discover weaknesses in Bitcoin that can be exploited to reduce the cost of SyncAttack, deanonymize Bitcoin transactions, and reduce the effective network hash rate. We also observe events that suggest malicious nodes are exploiting those weaknesses in the network. Finally, we patch those weaknesses to mitigate SyncAttack and associated risks.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get 963bee1c-2c16-419f-bd9d-9f4bd4e6198eCited by top-tier papers8
- Nurgle: Exacerbating Resource Consumption in Blockchain State Storage via MPT ManipulationZheyuan He, Zihao Li, Ao Qiao, Xiapu Luo et al.S&P 2024 · 21 citations
- Phishing in Wonderland: Evaluating Learning-Based Ethereum Phishing Transaction Detection and PitfallsAhod Alghuried, David MohaisenNDSS 2026 · 4 citations
- Eclipse Attacks on Monero's Peer-to-Peer NetworkRuisheng Shi, Zhiyuan Peng, Lina Lan, Yulian Ge et al.NDSS 2025
- Eclipse Attacks on Ethereum's Peer-to-Peer NetworkRuisheng Shi, Yuxuan Liang, Zijun Guo, Qin Wang et al.WWW 2026
- SoK: Decentralized Finance (DeFi) AttacksLiyi Zhou, Xihan Xiong, Jens Ernstberger, Stefanos Chaliasos et al.S&P 2023
Related papers
- Revisiting Nakamoto Consensus in Asynchronous Networks: A Comprehensive Analysis of Bitcoin Safety and ChainQualityMuhammad Saad, Afsah Anwar, Srivatsan Ravi, David MohaisenCCS 2021 · 29 citations
- Larger-scale Nakamoto-style Blockchains Don't Necessarily Offer Better SecurityJannik Albrecht, Sébastien Andreina, Frederik Armknecht, Ghassan Karame et al.S&P 2024 · 5 citations
- Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing Attacks on CryptocurrenciesMaria Apostolaki, Aviv Zohar, Laurent VanbeverS&P 2017 · 473 citations
- Modeling the Impact of Network Connectivity on Consensus Security of Proof-of-Work BlockchainYang Xiao, Ning Zhang, Wenjing Lou, Y. Thomas HouINFOCOM 2020 · 52 citations
- Tight Consistency Bounds for BitcoinPeter Gazi, Aggelos Kiayias, Alexander RussellCCS 2020
