A Blockchain Consensus Protocol Based on Dedicated Time-Memory-Data Trade-Off

TL;DR

This paper introduces a flexible blockchain consensus protocol leveraging a Time-Memory-Data Trade-Off approach, balancing energy and space resources, and overcoming limitations of traditional Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Space methods.

Contribution

It proposes a novel consensus technique based on cryptographic TMD-TO, allowing adjustable resource expenditure and enhanced security compared to existing protocols.

Findings

The protocol offers adjustable resource spending for participants.

Security analysis shows conditions for maintaining blockchain integrity.

Implementation complexity is comparable or better than PoW and PoS.

Abstract

A problem of developing the consensus protocols in public blockchain systems which spend a combination of energy and space resources is addressed. A technique is proposed that provides a flexibility for selection of the energy and space resources which should be spent by a player participating in the consensus procedure. The technique originates from the cryptographic time-memory-data trade-off approaches for cryptanalysis. The proposed technique avoids the limitations of Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of Space (PoS) which require spending of only energy and space, respectively. Also, it provides a flexibility for adjusting the resources spending to the system budget. The proposed consensus technique is based on a puzzle where the problem of inverting one-way function is solved employing a dedicated Time-Memory-Data Trade-Off (TMD-TO) paradigm. The algorithms of the consensus protocol are proposed which employ certain unconstrained and constrained TMD-TO based inversions. Security of the proposed technique is considered based on the probability that the honest pool of nodes generate a longer extension of the blockchain before its update, and a condition on the employed parameters in order to achieve desired security have been derived. Implementation complexity of the proposed consensus protocol is discussed and compared with the complexities when PoW and PoS are employed.