Security-Performance Tradeoff in DAG-based Proof-of-Work Blockchain Protocols
Shichen Wu, Puwen Wei, Ren Zhang, Bowen Jiang
Abstract
—Proof-of-work (PoW) blockchain protocols based on directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) have demonstrated superior transaction confirmation performance compared to their chain-based predecessors. However, it is uncertain whether their security deteriorates in high-throughput settings similar to their predecessors, because their acceptance of simultaneous blocks and complex block dependencies presents challenges for rigorous security analysis. We address these challenges by analyzing DAG-based protocols via a congestible blockchain model (CBM), a general model that allows case-by-case upper bounds on the block propagation delay, rather than a uniform upper bound as in most previous analyses. CBM allows us to capture two key phenomena of high-throughput settings: (1) simultaneous blocks increase each other’s propagation delay, and (2) a block can be processed only after receiving all the blocks it refers to. We further devise a reasonable adversarial block propagation strategy in CBM, called the late-predecessor attack, which exploits block dependencies to delay the processing of honest blocks. We then evaluate the security and performance of Prism and OHIE, two DAG-based protocols that aim to break the security-performance tradeoff, in the presence of an attacker capable of launching the late predecessor attack. Our results show that these protocols suffer from reduced security and extended latency in high-throughput settings similar to their chain-based predecessors.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext ced77abb-0914-44ef-a09b-3803542c6300Builds on15
- Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus InstabilityPhilip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li et al.S&P 2020 · 607 citations
- Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing Attacks on CryptocurrenciesMaria Apostolaki, Aviv Zohar, Laurent VanbeverS&P 2017 · 473 citations
- Narwhal and Tusk: a DAG-based mempool and efficient BFT consensusGeorge Danezis, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Alberto Sonnino, Alexander SpiegelmanEuroSys 2022 · 259 citations
- Prism: Deconstructing the Blockchain to Approach Physical LimitsVivek Kumar Bagaria, Sreeram Kannan, David Tse, Giulia Fanti et al.CCS 2019 · 256 citations
- A Decentralized Blockchain with High Throughput and Fast ConfirmationChenxing Li, Peilun Li, Dong Zhou, Zhe Yang et al.USENIX ATC 2020 · 172 citations
Related papers
- Nakamoto Consensus under Bounded Processing CapacityLucianna Kiffer, Joachim Neu, Srivatsan Sridhar, Aviv Zohar et al.CCS 2024 · 2 citations
- Securing Parallel-chain Protocols under Variable Mining PowerXuechao Wang, Viswa Virinchi Muppirala, Lei Yang, Sreeram Kannan et al.CCS 2021
- High-Throughput Permissionless Blockchain Consensus Under Realistic Network AssumptionsSandro Coretti, Matthias Fitzi, Aggelos Kiayias, Giorgos Panagiotakos et al.CRYPTO 2025
- LBFT-DAG: A Swift, Leader-Driven, DAG-Based Consortium Blockchain with Byzantine Fault-ToleranceXuewen Dong, Yi Liu, Teng Li, Xiaojie Guo et al.INFOCOM 2025 · 4 citations
- OHIE: Blockchain Scaling Made SimpleHaifeng Yu, Ivica Nikolic, Ruomu Hou, Prateek SaxenaS&P 2020 · 166 citations
