论文标题

SyncPCN/psyncpcn:没有区块链同步的支付频道网络

SyncPCN/PSyncPCN: Payment Channel Networks without Blockchain Synchrony

论文作者

Ersoy, Oğuzhan, Decouchant, Jérémie, Kimble, Satwik Prabhu, Roos, Stefanie

论文摘要

支付渠道网络(PCN)通过允许当事方在链上进行交易,即,即不向所有区块链参与者进行每笔交易,从而增强了区块链的可扩展性。为了进行交易,发件人和接收者可以建立一个直接支付渠道,该直接支付渠道具有资金区块链交易,或者在多跳付款中利用现有的渠道。 PCN的安全通常取决于基础区块链的同步,即需要在一个时间限制内发布在区块链上的不当行为证据。不需要区块链同步的替代付款渠道建议依靠法定人数证书并使用委员会来注册渠道的交易。但是,这些建议不支持多跳付款,这是我们旨在克服的限制。在本文中,我们证明,实际上不可能使用网络异步和故障渠道设计多跳付款协议,即可能无法正确遵循协议的渠道。然后,我们详细介绍了两个基于委员会的多跳付款协议,它们分别采用同步通信和可能有故障的渠道,或异步通信和正确的渠道。第一个协议依靠可能有故障的委员会而不是区块链来解决渠道争议,并在同步网络中执行隐私属性。第二个依赖于最多包含3F+1中有缺陷成员的委员会,并依次互相委派最终完成多跳付款的作用。我们表明,这两个协议都满足了多跳付款的安全要求,并比较了他们的通信复杂性和延迟。

Payment channel networks (PCNs) enhance the scalability of blockchains by allowing parties to conduct transactions off-chain, i.e, without broadcasting every transaction to all blockchain participants. To conduct transactions, a sender and a receiver can either establish a direct payment channel with a funding blockchain transaction or leverage existing channels in a multi-hop payment. The security of PCNs usually relies on the synchrony of the underlying blockchain, i.e., evidence of misbehavior needs to be published on the blockchain within a time limit. Alternative payment channel proposals that do not require blockchain synchrony rely on quorum certificates and use a committee to register the transactions of a channel. However, these proposals do not support multi-hop payments, a limitation we aim to overcome. In this paper, we demonstrate that it is in fact impossible to design a multi-hop payment protocol with both network asynchrony and faulty channels, i.e., channels that may not correctly follow the protocol. We then detail two committee-based multi-hop payment protocols that respectively assume synchronous communications and possibly faulty channels, or asynchronous communication and correct channels. The first protocol relies on possibly faulty committees instead of the blockchain to resolve channel disputes, and enforces privacy properties within a synchronous network. The second one relies on committees that contain at most f faulty members out of 3f+1 and successively delegate to each other the role of eventually completing a multi-hop payment. We show that both protocols satisfy the security requirements of a multi-hop payment and compare their communication complexity and latency.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源