Advertisement

Channels: Horizontal Scaling and Confidentiality on Permissioned Blockchains

  • Elli Androulaki
  • Christian Cachin
  • Angelo De Caro
  • Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11098)

Abstract

Sharding, or partitioning the system’s state so that different subsets of participants handle it, is a proven approach to building distributed systems whose total capacity scales horizontally with the number of participants. Many distributed ledgers have adopted this approach to increase their performance, however, they focus on the permissionless setting that assumes the existence of a strong adversary. In this paper, we deploy channels for permissioned blockchains. Our first contribution is to adapt sharding on asset-management applications for the permissioned setting, while preserving liveness and safety even on transactions spanning across-channels. Our second contribution is to leverage channels as a confidentiality boundary, enabling different organizations and consortia to preserve their privacy within their channels and still be part of a bigger collaborative ecosystem. To make our system concrete we map it on top of Hyperledger Fabric.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Marko Vukolić and Björn Tackmann for their valuable suggestions and discussions on earlier versions of this work. This work has been supported in part by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 780477 PRIViLEDGE.

References

  1. 1.
    Androulaki, E., et al.: Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth European conference on Computer systems, EuroSys 2018. ACM, New York (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10228
  2. 2.
    Bishop, G.: Illinois begins pilot project to put birth certificates on digital ledger technology, September 2017. https://www.ilnews.org/news/statewide/illinois-begins-pilot-project-to-put-birth-certificates-on-digital/article_1005eca0-98c7-11e7-b466-170ecac25737.html
  3. 3.
    Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: SoK: research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 104–121. IEEE (2015). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7163021/
  4. 4.
    Browne, R.: IBM partners with nestle, unilever and other food giants to trace food contamination with blockchain, September 2017. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/ibm-nestle-unilever-walmart-blockchain-food-contamination.html
  5. 5.
    Cachin, C., Vukolic, M.: Blockchain consensus protocols in the wild. CoRR, abs/1707.01873 (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01873
  6. 6.
    Croman, K., et al.: On scaling decentralized blockchains (a position paper). In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 106–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_8. http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danezis, G., Meiklejohn, S.: Centrally banked cryptocurrencies. In: 23rd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), February 2016. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/502.pdf
  8. 8.
    Herlihy, M.: Atomic cross-chain swaps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09515 (2018)
  9. 9.
    Kim, Y., Perrig, A., Tsudik, G.: Tree-based group key agreement. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. (TISSEC) 7(1), 60–96 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kokoris-Kogias, E., et al.: Hidden in plain sight: storing and managing secrets on a public ledger. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/209 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/209
  11. 11.
    Kokoris-Kogias, E., Jovanovic, P., Gailly, N., Khoffi, I., Gasser, L., Ford, B.: Enhancing bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing. In: Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06997
  12. 12.
    Kokoris-Kogias, E., Jovanovic, P., Gasser, L., Gailly, N., Syta, E., Ford, B.: OmniLedger: a secure, scale-out, decentralized ledger via sharding. In: 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 19–34. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., Papamanthou, C.: Hawk: the blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. Technical report, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/675 (2015). http://eprint.iacr.org
  14. 14.
    Maxwell, G.: Confidential transactions (2015). http://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidentialvalues.txt
  15. 15.
    Melendez, S.: Fast, Secure Blockchain Tech from an Unexpected Source Microsoft, September 2017. https://www.fastcompany.com/40461634/
  16. 16.
    Miers, I., Garman, C., Green, M., Rubin, A.D.: Zerocoin: anonymous distributed e-cash from bitcoin. In: 34th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), May 2013Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
  18. 18.
    Nikitin, K., et al.: CHAINIAC: proactive software-update transparency via collectively signed skipchains and verified builds. In: 26th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 17), pp. 1271–1287 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-interactive and information-theoretic secure verifiable secret sharing. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 129–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46766-1_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roy, R.: Shard âĂŞ a database design, July 2008. http://technoroy.blogspot.ch/2008/07/shard-database-design.html
  21. 21.
    Sasson, E., et al.: Zerocash: decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 459–474. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simonsen, S.: 5 Reasons the UN is jumping on the blockchain bandwagon, September 2017. https://singularityhub.com/2017/09/03/the-united-nations-and-the-ethereum-blockchain/
  23. 23.
    Swanson, T.: Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems. Report, April 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wikipedia: Atomic commit, February 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_commit

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elli Androulaki
    • 1
  • Christian Cachin
    • 1
  • Angelo De Caro
    • 1
  • Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Research - ZurichRüschlikonSwitzerland
  2. 2.EPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations