Contact : 9561854529 Email : submitpaper@ijaea.com editorinchief.ijaea@gmail.com Working Hours: 9am to 9PM

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Application

ISSN: 3048-6807

Submit Paper Apply for Reviewer

Dependability Analysis of Bitcoin at the System Level under Eclipse and 51% Attacks

Author(s):Tannu Priya�, Sohamkar�, Abhinandan�

Affiliation: 1,2,3Department of Computer Science Engineering. 1,2,3Sai Vidya Institute of Technology, Karnataka, India

Page No: 10-13

Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 1 Issue 6, OCT-2024

Journal: International Journal of Advanced Engineering Application (IJAEA)

ISSN NO: 3048-6807

DOI:

Download PDF

Abstract:
Bitcoin, a digital cryptocurrency rooted in Blockchain technology, has surged in popularity due to its decentralized nature. However, it is susceptible to certain cyberattacks, such as the 51% attack, where malicious actors can gain control over more than half of the network�s computing power, thus having the ability to modify the blockchain. To execute this, attackers may initially perform an Eclipse attack, monopolizing communication channels to and from a Bitcoin node. In this paper, we analyze the reliability of the Bitcoin network when subjected to Eclipse and 51% attacks. We propose a hierarchical model using a continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC) for node-level dependability analysis and a multi-valued decision diagram (MDD) for system-level dependability assessment. The model is evaluated through case studies of Bitcoin systems with both homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes, analysing the influence of critical parameters on network dependability.

Keywords: Bitcoin, Dependability, Eclipse attack, Hierarchical modelling, 51% attack

Reference:

  • 1. Bag, S., Ruj, S., & Sakurai, K. (2016). Bitcoin block withholding attack: Analysis and mitigation. IEEE Transactions on Information
  • Forensics and Security, 12(8), 1967-1978.
  • 2. Bastiaan, M. (2015). Preventing the 51%-attack: A stochastic analysis of two phase proof of work in Bitcoin.
  • https://fmt.ewi.utwente.nl/media/175.pdf, Accessed in June 2023.
  • 3. Eyal, I., & Sirer, E.G. (2014). Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography
  • and Data Security (pp. 436-454). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • 4. Ferrag, M.A., Derdour, M., Mukherjee, M., Derhab, A., Maglaras, L., & Janicke, H. (2018). Blockchain technologies for the Internet of
  • Things: Research issues and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(2), 2188-2204.
  • 5. Frizzo-Barker, J., Chow-White, P.A., Adams, P.R., Mentanko, J., Ha, D., & Green, S. (2020). Blockchain as a disruptive technology for
  • business: A systematic review. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 102029.
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10.014
  • 6. Gervais, A., Ritzdorf, H., Karame, G.O., & Capkun, S. (2015). Tampering with the delivery of blocks and transactions in Bitcoin. In
  • Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 692-705). Denver, United States.
  • 7. G�bel, J., Keeler, H.P., Krzesinski, A.E., & Taylor, P.G. (2016). Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: the selfish-mine strategy in the presence of
  • propagation delay. Performance Evaluation, 104, 23-41.
  • 8. Heilman, E., Kendler, A., Zohar, A., & Goldberg, S. (2015). Eclipse attacks on Bitcoin�s peer-to-peer network. In 24th USENIX Security
  • Symposium (pp. 129-144). Washington D.C., United States.
  • 9. Kang, J., Yu, R., Huang, X., Wu, M., Maharjan, S., Xie, S., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Blockchain for secure and efficient data sharing in vehicular
  • edge computing and networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(3), 4660-4670.
  • 10. Monaco, J.V. (2015). Identifying Bitcoin users by transaction behavior. In Biometric and Surveillance Technology for Human and Activity
  • Identification XII (Vol. 9457, pp. 945704). International Society for Optics and Photonics. Baltimore, United States.
  • https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2177039.
  • 11. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Consulted, 1(2012), 28, https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.
  • 12. Novoa, F., Orozco, A., Polanco, R., & Wightman, A. (2021). The 51% attack on blockchains: A mining behavior study. IEEE Access, 9,
  • 140549-140564. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3119291.
  • 13. Reid, F., & Harrigan, M. (2013). An analysis of anonymity in the Bitcoin system. In Security and Privacy in Social Networks (pp. 197-223).
  • Springer, New York, United States.
  • 14. Sapirshtein, A., Sompolinsky, Y., & Zohar, A. (2016). Optimal selfish mining strategies in Bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial
  • Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 515-532). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • 15. Xing, L. (2020). Reliability in internet of things: Current status and future perspectives. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(8), 6704-6721.
  • https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.2993216.
  • 16. Xing, L., & Amari, S.V. (2015). Binary decision diagrams and extensions for system reliability analysis. Scrivener Publishing LLC, Beverly,
  • MA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119178026.
  • 17. Xing, L., & Dai, Y. (2009). A new decision-diagram-based method for efficient analysis on multistate systems. IEEE Transactions on
  • Dependable and Secure Computing, 6(3), 161-174.
  • 18. Zhang, S., & Lee, J.H. (2019). Double-spending with a sybil attack in the Bitcoin decentralized network. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
  • Informatics, 15(10), 5715-5722.
  • 19. Zhou, C., Xing, L., & Liu, Q. (2021a). Dependability analysis of Bitcoin subject to eclipse attacks. International Journal of Mathematical,
  • Engineering and Management Sciences, 6(2), 469-479.
  • 20. Zhou, C., Xing, L., Guo, J., & Liu, Q. (2022). Bitcoin selfish mining modeling and dependability analysis. International Journal of
  • Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 7(1), 16-27.
  • 21. Zhou, C., Xing, L., Liu, Q., & Wang, H. (2021b). Semi-Markov based dependability modeling of Bitcoin nodes under eclipse attacks and
  • state-dependent mitigation. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 6(2), 480-492.
  • 22. Zhou, C., Xing, L., Liu, Q., & Wang, H. (2023). Effective selfish mining defense strategies to improve Bitcoin dependability. Applied
  • Sciences, 13(1), 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010422.