DAG-based Consensus with Asymmetric Trust [Extended Version]
Authors:
Ignacio Amores-Sesar,
Christian Cachin,
Juan Villacis,
Luca Zanolini
Abstract:
In protocols with asymmetric trust, each participant is free to make its own individual trust assumptions about others, captured by an asymmetric quorum system. This contrasts with ordinary, symmetric quorum systems and with threshold models, where all participants share the same trust assumption. It is already known how to realize reliable broadcasts, shared-memory emulations, and binary consensu…
▽ More
In protocols with asymmetric trust, each participant is free to make its own individual trust assumptions about others, captured by an asymmetric quorum system. This contrasts with ordinary, symmetric quorum systems and with threshold models, where all participants share the same trust assumption. It is already known how to realize reliable broadcasts, shared-memory emulations, and binary consensus with asymmetric quorums. In this work, we introduce Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)-based consensus protocols with asymmetric trust. To achieve this, we extend the key building-blocks of the well-known DAG-Rider protocol to the asymmetric model. Counter to expectation, we find that replacing threshold quorums with their asymmetric counterparts in the existing constant-round gather protocol does not result in a sound asymmetric gather primitive. This implies that asymmetric DAG-based consensus protocols, specifically those based on the existence of common-core primitives, need new ideas in an asymmetric-trust model. Consequently, we introduce the first asymmetric protocol for computing a common core, equivalent to that in the threshold model. This leads to the first randomized asynchronous DAG-based consensus protocol with asymmetric quorums. It decides within an expected constant number of rounds after an input has been submitted, where the constant depends on the quorum system.
△ Less
Submitted 23 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
Deanonymizing Ethereum Validators: The P2P Network Has a Privacy Issue
Authors:
Lioba Heimbach,
Yann Vonlanthen,
Juan Villacis,
Lucianna Kiffer,
Roger Wattenhofer
Abstract:
Many blockchain networks aim to preserve the anonymity of validators in the peer-to-peer (P2P) network, ensuring that no adversary can link a validator's identifier to the IP address of a peer due to associated privacy and security concerns. This work demonstrates that the Ethereum P2P network does not offer this anonymity. We present a methodology that enables any node in the network to identify…
▽ More
Many blockchain networks aim to preserve the anonymity of validators in the peer-to-peer (P2P) network, ensuring that no adversary can link a validator's identifier to the IP address of a peer due to associated privacy and security concerns. This work demonstrates that the Ethereum P2P network does not offer this anonymity. We present a methodology that enables any node in the network to identify validators hosted on connected peers and empirically verify the feasibility of our proposed method. Using data collected from four nodes over three days, we locate more than 15% of Ethereum validators in the P2P network. The insights gained from our deanonymization technique provide valuable information on the distribution of validators across peers, their geographic locations, and hosting organizations. We further discuss the implications and risks associated with the lack of anonymity in the P2P network and propose methods to help validators protect their privacy. The Ethereum Foundation has awarded us a bug bounty, acknowledging the impact of our results.
△ Less
Submitted 1 February, 2025; v1 submitted 6 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
