Understanding decentralization of decision-making power in proof-of-stake blockchains: an agent-based simulation approach

IF 7.3 2区 管理学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS European Journal of Information Systems Pub Date : 2022-09-19 DOI:10.1080/0960085x.2022.2125840
Christoph Mueller-Bloch, J. Andersen, Jason Spasovski, Jungpil Hahn
{"title":"Understanding decentralization of decision-making power in proof-of-stake blockchains: an agent-based simulation approach","authors":"Christoph Mueller-Bloch, J. Andersen, Jason Spasovski, Jungpil Hahn","doi":"10.1080/0960085x.2022.2125840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Blockchain systems allow for securely keeping shared records of transactions in a decentralised way. This is enabled by algorithms called consensus mechanisms. Proof-of-work is the most prominent consensus mechanism, but environmentally unsustainable. Here, we focus on proof-of-stake, its best-known alternative. Importantly, decentralised decision-making power is not an inherent feature of blockchain systems, but a technological possibility. Numerous security incidents illustrate that decentralised control cannot be taken for granted. We therefore study how key parameters affect the degree of decentralisation in proof-of-stake blockchain systems. Based on a real-world implementation of a proof-of-stake blockchain system, we conduct agent-based simulations to study how a range of parameters impact decentralisation. The results suggest that high numbers of initial potential validator nodes, large transactions, a high number of transactions, and a very high or very low positive validator network growth rate increase decentralisation. We find weak support for an impact of changes in transaction fees and initial stake distributions. Our study highlights how blockchain challenges our under- standing of decentralisation in information systems research, and contributes to understanding the governance mechanisms that lead to decentralisation in proof-of-stake blockchain systems as well as to designing proof-of-stake blockchain systems that are prone to decentralisation and therefore more secure.","PeriodicalId":50486,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Information Systems","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2022.2125840","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Blockchain systems allow for securely keeping shared records of transactions in a decentralised way. This is enabled by algorithms called consensus mechanisms. Proof-of-work is the most prominent consensus mechanism, but environmentally unsustainable. Here, we focus on proof-of-stake, its best-known alternative. Importantly, decentralised decision-making power is not an inherent feature of blockchain systems, but a technological possibility. Numerous security incidents illustrate that decentralised control cannot be taken for granted. We therefore study how key parameters affect the degree of decentralisation in proof-of-stake blockchain systems. Based on a real-world implementation of a proof-of-stake blockchain system, we conduct agent-based simulations to study how a range of parameters impact decentralisation. The results suggest that high numbers of initial potential validator nodes, large transactions, a high number of transactions, and a very high or very low positive validator network growth rate increase decentralisation. We find weak support for an impact of changes in transaction fees and initial stake distributions. Our study highlights how blockchain challenges our under- standing of decentralisation in information systems research, and contributes to understanding the governance mechanisms that lead to decentralisation in proof-of-stake blockchain systems as well as to designing proof-of-stake blockchain systems that are prone to decentralisation and therefore more secure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解利益证明区块链中决策权的分散:一种基于代理的模拟方法
区块链系统允许以去中心化的方式安全地保存交易的共享记录。这是由称为共识机制的算法实现的。工作证明是最突出的共识机制,但在环境上是不可持续的。在这里,我们关注的是股权证明,它最著名的替代方案。重要的是,去中心化的决策权不是区块链系统的固有特征,而是一种技术可能性。许多安全事件表明,分散控制不能被视为理所当然。因此,我们研究了关键参数如何影响权益证明区块链系统的去中心化程度。基于权益证明区块链系统的真实实施,我们进行了基于代理的模拟,以研究一系列参数如何影响去中心化。结果表明,大量的初始潜在验证器节点、大型交易、大量交易以及非常高或非常低的正验证器网络增长率都会增加去中心化。我们发现交易费用和初始股权分配变化的影响支持不力。我们的研究强调了区块链如何挑战我们在信息系统研究中的去中心化地位,并有助于理解导致股权证明区块链系统去中心化的治理机制,以及设计易于去中心化并因此更安全的股权证明区块区块链系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Information Systems
European Journal of Information Systems 工程技术-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
52
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Information Systems offers a unique European perspective on the theory and practice of information systems for a global readership. We actively seek first-rate articles that offer a critical examination of information technology, covering its effects, development, implementation, strategy, management, and policy.
期刊最新文献
Unveiling motivational configurations in shaping meaningful engagement in green gamification Determinants of gamification effectiveness: perspectives of technology affordances and coping responses in the context of team-based gamified training Examining the impact of mobile gambling harm minimisation features: a dualistic model of passion perspective Achieving strategic alignment between business and information technology with information technology governance: the role of commitment to principles and Top Leadership Support Reducing the incidence of biased algorithmic decisions through feature importance transparency: an empirical study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1