Privacy-Utility Tradeoffs in Routing Cryptocurrency over Payment Channel Networks

TL;DR

This paper investigates the privacy-utility tradeoff in routing within payment channel networks for cryptocurrencies, proposing mechanisms to balance privacy preservation with transaction success rates.

Contribution

It introduces fundamental limits on privacy-utility tradeoffs and proposes noise mechanisms that optimize this balance for various network topologies.

Findings

Fundamental limits on privacy-utility tradeoffs in PCNs.

Noise mechanisms can achieve optimal tradeoffs.

Practical PCNs operate in either low-privacy or low-utility regimes.

Abstract

Payment channel networks (PCNs) are viewed as one of the most promising scalability solutions for cryptocurrencies today. Roughly, PCNs are networks where each node represents a user and each directed, weighted edge represents funds escrowed on a blockchain; these funds can be transacted only between the endpoints of the edge. Users efficiently transmit funds from node A to B by relaying them over a path connecting A to B, as long as each edge in the path contains enough balance (escrowed funds) to support the transaction. Whenever a transaction succeeds, the edge weights are updated accordingly. However, in deployed PCNs, channel balances (i.e., edge weights) are not revealed to users for privacy reasons; users know only the initial weights at time 0. Hence, when routing transactions, users first guess a path, then check if it supports the transaction. This guess-and-check process dramatically reduces the success rate of transactions. At the other extreme, knowing full channel balances can give substantial improvements in success rate at the expense of privacy. In this work, we study whether a network can reveal noisy channel balances to trade off privacy for utility. We show fundamental limits on such a tradeoff, and propose noise mechanisms that achieve the fundamental limit for a general class of graph topologies. Our results suggest that in practice, PCNs should operate either in the low-privacy or low-utility regime; it is not possible to get large gains in utility by giving up a little privacy, or large gains in privacy by sacrificing a little utility.