On Selfholding Attack Impact on Imperfect PoW Blockchain Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proof-of-Work (PoW) blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum are vulnerable to selfholding attack. The prior modeling-based works about this attack only considered Bitcoin and assumed that there were at most two honest pools in a perfect network (no natural fork in such networks). However, a blockchain network is imperfect due to block propagation delay, which can lead to forking. Moreover, there may be more than two pools under attack. This paper aims for a quantitative analysis of an imperfect PoW blockchain network system under selfholding attack. We develop a novel stochastic model and derive formulas to evaluate the effect of selfholding attack on miner revenue, system security and system performance. Our work can be used to analyze the scenario where there are any number of pools suffering selfholding attack in both Ethereum and Bitcoin. The model in this paper can capture the behaviors of a more realistic and more general scenario, compared with the existing models. Moreover, our model and formulas can also be applied to evaluate a blockchain system, which uses a similar reward mechanism and is vulnerable to selfholding attack. Our work can help design a more secure blockchain incentive mechanism and an in-pool reward mechanism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".