Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
As a decentralized ledger technology, blockchain is considered to be a potential solution for applications with highly concentrated management mechanism. However, most of the existing blockchain networks are employed with the hash-puzzle-solving consensus protocol, known as proof-of-work. The competition of solving the puzzle introduces high latency, which directly leads to a long transaction-processing time. One solution of this dilemma is to establish a blockchain network with shards. In this paper, we focus on the blockchain network with shards and adopt the security-deposit based consensus protocol, studying the problem of how to balance the security incentive and the economic incentive. Also, the inherent features of the blockchain, i.e., anonymity and decentralization, introduce the information asymmetric issue between the beacon chain and the participants. The contract theory is utilized to formulate the problem between them. As such, the optimal rewards related to the different types of validators can be obtained, as well as the reasonable deposits accordingly. Compared with the fixed deposits, the flexible deposits can provide enough economic incentive for the participants without losing the security incentives. Besides, the simulation results demonstrate that the contract theory approach is capable of maximizing the beacon chain's utility and satisfying the incentive compatibility and individual rationality of the participants. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2019 | 10.1109/Blockchain.2019.00019 | 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
contract theory,security deposit,blockchain,sharding | Decentralization,Incentive compatibility,Rationality,Contract theory,Incentive,Computer security,Computer science,Security deposit,Dilemma,Anonymity | Conference |
ISBN | Citations | PageRank |
978-1-7281-4694-2 | 1 | 0.36 |
References | Authors | |
9 | 6 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jing Li | 1 | 45 | 47.28 |
| Tingting Liu | 2 | 70 | 16.52 |
| Niyato Dusit | 3 | 9486 | 547.06 |
| Ping Wang | 4 | 4153 | 216.93 |
| Jun Li | 5 | 747 | 90.31 |
| Zhu Han | 6 | 11215 | 760.71 |