Advertisement

Scalable Funding of Bitcoin Micropayment Channel Networks

Regular Submission
  • Conrad Burchert
  • Christian Decker
  • Roger Wattenhofer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10616)

Abstract

The Bitcoin network has scalability problems. To increase its transaction rate and speed, micropayment channel networks have been proposed, however these require to lock funds into specific channels. Moreover, the available space in the blockchain does not allow scaling to a world wide payment system. We propose a new layer that sits in between the blockchain and the payment channels. The new layer addresses the scalability problem by enabling trust-less off-blockchain channel funding. It consists of shared accounts of groups of nodes that flexibly create one-to-one channels for the payment network. The new system allows rapid changes of the allocation of funds to channels and reduces the cost of opening new channels. Instead of one blockchain transaction per channel, each user only needs one transaction to enter a group of nodes – within the group the user can create arbitrary many channels. For a group of 20 users with 100 intra-group channels, the cost of the blockchain transactions is reduced by 90% compared to 100 regular micropayment channels opened on the blockchain. This can be increased further to 96% if Bitcoin introduces Schnorr signatures with signature aggregation.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Bamert, T., Decker, C., Elsen, L., Wattenhofer, R., Welten, S.: Have a snack, pay with bitcoins. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein, D.J., Duif, N., Lange, T., Schwabe, P., Yang, B.Y.: High-speed high-security signatures. J. Cryptographic Eng. 2(2), 77–89 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BtcDrak, Friedenbach, M., Lombrozo, E.: Bip 112: Checksequenceverify (2015). https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki
  5. 5.
    Corallo, M.: Bip 152: compact block relay (2016). https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0152.mediawiki
  6. 6.
    Croman, K., Decker, C., Eyal, I., Gencer, A.E., Juels, A., Kosba, A., Miller, A., Saxena, P., Shi, E., Gün, E.: On scaling decentralized blockchains. In: 3rd Workshop on Bitcoin Research (2016). http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/74bc987e6ab4a8478c04950616612f69/main.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decker, C., Wattenhofer, R.: Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, September 2013Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker, C., Wattenhofer, R.: A fast and scalable payment network with bitcoin duplex micropayment channels. In: Pelc, A., Schwarzmann, A.A. (eds.) SSS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9212, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21741-3_1. http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dryja, T.: Scalability of lightning with different bips and some back-of-the-envelope calculations (2015). http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/overview-of-bips-necessary-for-lightning/
  10. 10.
    Friedenbach, M., BtcDrak, Dorier, N., kinoshitajona: Bip 68: Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers (2015). https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0068.mediawiki
  11. 11.
    Gervais, A., Karame, G.O., Wüst, K., Glykantzis, V., Ritzdorf, H., Capkun, S.: On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In: 23rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2016). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2976749.2978341
  12. 12.
    Gervais, A., Ritzdorf, H., Karame, G.O., Capkun, S.: Tampering with the delivery of blocks and transactions in bitcoin. In: Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hearn, M.: Low bandwidth block relay using thin blocks (2015). https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/91
  14. 14.
    Karame, G.O., Androulaki, E., Capkun, S.: Two bitcoins at the price of one? Double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In: Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luu, L., Narayanan, V., Baweja, K., Zheng, C., Gilbert, S., Saxena, P.: SCP: a Computationally-Scalable Byzantine Consensus Protocol for Blockchains (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luu, L., Narayanan, V., Zheng, C., Baweja, K., Gilbert, S., Saxena, P.: A secure sharding protocol for open blockchains. In: Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
  18. 18.
    Poon, J., Dryja, T.: The bitcoin lightning network: scalable off-chain instant payments (2016). https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
  19. 19.
    Prihodko, P., Zhigulin, S., Sahno, M., Ostrovskiy, A., Osuntokun, O.: Flare: an approach to routing (2016). http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/whitepaper_flare_an_approach_to_routing_in_lightning_network_7_7_2016.pdf
  20. 20.
    Rosenfeld, M.: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending (2012). https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Russell, R.: Lightning networks part ii: Hashed timelock contracts (HTLCs) (2015). https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=462
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Schnorr, C.P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. J. Cryptol. (1991)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: Accelerating bitcoin’s transaction processing (fast money grows on trees, not chains) (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Wuille, P.: Elliptic curve schnorr-based signatures in bitcoin (2016). https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/milan2016/schnorr-signatures

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETH ZurichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Blockstream Inc.San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations