anonymity in the bitcoin peer to peer network
play

Anonymity in the Bitcoin Peer-to-Peer Network Shaileshh Bojja - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Anonymity in the Bitcoin Peer-to-Peer Network Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan, Giulia Fanti, Pramod Viswanath Untraceable Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LqlMzEe-I This is false. Blockchain sd93fjj2 Bitcoin Primer


  1. Anonymity in the Bitcoin Peer-to-Peer Network Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan, Giulia Fanti, Pramod Viswanath

  2. “Untraceable Bitcoin” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LqlMzEe-­‑I

  3. This is false.

  4. Blockchain sd93fjj2 Bitcoin Primer pckrn29 … our transaction Transaction k A sends k coin to k B Bob Alice k B k A k coin

  5. How can users be deanonymized? What about the peer-to-peer network? Blockchain Meiklejohn et al., 2013

  6. Attacks on the Network Layer Eavesdropper Biryukov et al., 2014 Koshy et al., 2014 Alice

  7. Our Work Analysis Redesign 2) Spreading Phase 1) Anonymity Phase Pr(detection) Dandelion Under submission, 2017 Under submission, 2017

  8. Analysis How bad is the problem?

  9. Flooding Protocols Trickle (pre-2015) Diffusion (post-2015) (4) (1) exp ¡ (𝜇) exp ¡ (𝜇) exp ¡ (𝜇) exp ¡ (𝜇) (2) (3)

  10. Does diffusion solve the problem?

  11. Results: d-Regular Trees Theorem : The maximum-likelihood probabilities of detection for diffusion and trickle are asymptotically identical in d.

  12. Results: Trees Trickle Probability of Detection Diffusion Number of Corrupt Connections

  13. Results: Bitcoin Graph 1 Trickle Probability of Detection 0.9 0.8 Diffusion 0.7 0.6 0.5 Trickle, Theoretical lower bound 0.4 Trickle, Simulated Trickle, Theoretical lower bound (d=2) Diffusion, Theoretical 0.3 Diffusion, Simulation 0 5 10 15 20 Number of Corrupt Connections

  14. Diffusion does not have (significantly) better anonymity properties than trickle.

  15. Redesign Can we design a better network?

  16. Adversarial Model observe all metadata learn the graph over fraction p time of spies honest- but-curious

  17. Metric for Anonymity Recall (Probability of Precision Detection)

  18. Goal: Design a distributed flooding protocol that minimizes the maximum precision and recall achievable by a computationally-unbounded adversary.

  19. Fundamental Limits 1 1 Max ¡recall ≥ 𝑞 Precision p Max ¡precision ≥ 𝑞 6 p 2 0 1 0 p 1 Recall

  20. Proposed Algorithm: Dandelion 2) Spreading Phase 1) Anonymity Phase

  21. How is Dandelion different from Tor? 1) Messages propagate over the same cycle graph 2) Cycle graph changes dynamically. 3) No encryption required.

  22. Performance: Achievable Region 1 Flooding Precision Diffusion Dandelion p 2 0 p 1 Recall

  23. Practical Issues Base Case Constructing a Hamiltonian cycle k=1 Rounds k=1 rounds of Degree Base Case Degree-Checking

  24. Comparison with Alternative Solutions Connect through Tor I2P Integration (e.g. Monero) Tor

  25. Next Steps Other Practical Byzantine adversarial demonstration nodes models of viability

  26. Take-Home Messages 1) Bitcoin P2P anonymity = L . 2) Moving from trickle to diffusion did not help. 3) Dandelion may be a lightweight solution for certain classes of adversaries.

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend