Response to Cosmos white paper's claims on DPOS security

There was recently a discussion between the Cosmos team and some BitShares / Steem users regarding the security of DPOS compared to the claims made about it by a competitors white paper. I wrote a long / detailed response and felt I should re-post it here.

In this thread the term "witness", "miner", "validator", and "producer" are used in imprecise ways. Lets define some terms:

Block Producer

A block producer is responsible for grouping transactions into a block and broadcasting it to the network.The number of block producers per confirmation period is limited by block production frequency and incentive structures.

Block Validator

Anyone running a full node is a block validator. A block is considered valid if and only if it follows the open source rules of the blockchain. It does not matter how many block producers collude, a block validator (and the rest of the world) will reject all blocks that fail to conform to internal consensus. In theory there are an unlimited number of block validators, limited only by the desire of individuals and businesses to independently verify block producer behavior. This motivation is often to prevent a business from being defrauded by following a fork that violates the consensus rules.

Last Irreversible Block

A block that has been widely acknowledged as being valid and immutable. This block must be accepted by all validators you trust and confirmed by the majority of block producers.

Now that those terms are out of the way we can conclude that the act of producing a block is independent of the act of validating a block. Under DPOS every produced block can be viewed as a proposal and nothing more. This is similar to the first step in a multi-party block producing process such as Tinderment or Ripple.

Under DPOS every subsequent block is both a confirmation of multiple prior blocks and a proposal for the next block. The set of blocks between the last irreversible block (confirmed by 2/3 of producers) and the head block is like a pipe-line of pending block proposals.

By using a pipeline approach, DPOS has an average latency until irreversibility of 2 * BLOCK_INTERVAL * WITNESSES / 3. Which for STEEM is 40 seconds. While the latency for a single transaction is high, the pipe line allows for higher throughput where new transactions are made irreversible every 3 seconds. Furthermore, the pipeline gives everyone variable probability of irreversibility as blocks grow from 1 signature to 2/3 of required signatures.

What we can conclude is that the last irreversible block is identical to advancing blocks in Ripple and Tinderment in that it is a proposal accepted by 2/3 of block producers.

Security Provided by Non Producing Validators

The act of producing blocks means nothing if the produced blocks are not accepted by everyone else in the world. There can be 100,000 independent validators all talking with each other (relaying blocks and transactions). Each of these validators is running a state machine that will not allow them to roll back past their own perception of the last irreversible block.

If the majority of the block producers collude to produce a longer chain in an attempt to fork beyond the last irreversible block, then no exchange, block explorer, merchant, or other validator would switch to that fork. The entire world will agree on the "first fork seen".

This means that the only way to effect a double spend / reversal beyond last irreversible block is to isolate your victim and partition the network + collusion of producers. With a small amount of non-consensus changes it would even be possible for a particular node to require proof of TaPoS from a majority of non-block-producing trusted peers that periodically broadcast transactions. Under this model, even colluding block producers who isolate one victim will not be able to incorporate transactions from the other parties. TaPoS does this organically, but it could be made explicit.

In terms of Collateral

A Job has a net-present-value equal to the value of the future revenue stream combined with a sunk cost of campaigning. Losing the job has a real economic cost. Getting fired has an even greater loss due to value of reputation.

If there was any way for the majority of block producers to collude and cause actual harm to someone running a full validating node with good, long-standing, connections to a large number of peers then I could see the need for additional collateral. But considering every peer is able to independently verify that they and everyone they do business with is on the same irreversible fork, then there is no ability to deceive a single node.

There are two things a block producer can do to "harm" the network:

1. not produce a block
2. skip the block producer before them (this will likely orphan the attacker rather than the attacked)

As a group the block producers can prevent the advancement of the last irreversible block until one of the potentially reversible forks is able to elect a majority of block producers who then advance the last irreversible block. This means that absent a clear majority, any minority of producers can successfully hold an election and keep the last irrevrsiible block advancing.

Aside from halting advancement of the last irreversible block, the majority of block producers can also:

1. Ignore all minority producers and effectively increase the average block interval by 50%
2. Ignore / censor transactions / hinder election process

In all conceivable attack scenarios, there is no potential for a double spend of a traditional transfer. Users are only ever at risk if they face financial loss due to the censorship of their transaction. This risk applies to every blockchain and is therefore pointless to consider.

Security, Accountability, and Liveliness

I believe I have proven the the block producers cannot defraud 1000's of independent validators without partitioning the network and while physical network partitions may be possible, logical network partitions defined by non-consensus TaPoS trust links cannot be partitioned. The most that could be said is that TaPoS trust links are not currently deployed as a pro-active defense against a network partition attack.

The only reason for bonded block producers is to enforce a penalty for the network partition attack. If it is possible to prevent it in the first place by TaPoS links then no bond is necessary.

The network of 1000's of validators provide accountability through the ability to detect and report production of fraud chains. The probability of getting caught is 100% and the consequences involve both job loss, reputation loss, and potentially legal consequences of theft/fraud (because the parties are known and the double spend involved and off-chain business transaction).

The blockchain will remain live (advancing the last irreversible block) so long as at least 1 block producer is able to process enough pending transactions to elect a new set of witnesses who then start producing the last irreversible block. Even a loss of 100% of block producers will not prevent the network from advancing assuming a hard fork to enable one witness to hold a new election.

Conclusion

There are no known strategies by which a well connecting full validating node can be defrauded and the damage any individual block producer or even collusive majority group can do is so insignificant that a bonding requirement beyond job/reputation loss is unnecessary.

Do bonds actually make a platform more secure? They act as a barrier to entry that keeps block production (and therefore censorship rights) in the hands of the rich. The power to censor is far more valuable than any microscopic probability for producing two alternative chains in an effort to defraud an isolated victim.