Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Survey on Blockchain P2P Network

    Uploaded by

    sevkigani.sanlioz
    0 views4 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views4 pages

    Survey on Blockchain P2P Network

    Uploaded by

    sevkigani.sanlioz

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4
    Conmigu gaz Survey on Blockchain P2P Network ‘eri Kim Dept. of Computer Engineering Keimyuing University Daegu, Republic of Korea ‘AeriKima@stu ku ackr Abstract— Blockchain P2P solutions are becoming more specialized in architecture, peer type, and data propagation techniques. Interoperability on the Blockchain is becoming increasingly important, which has prompted the creation of protocols and frameworks for communication across various chains. In this study, we investigate the development and application of P2P technology in Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, and Cosmos are four blockehain platforms. Our findings demonstrate that the various blockehain P2P_ networks concentrate on finding practical solutions tothe scalab Keywords—P2P, Blockchain, Cosmos, Scalability, Interoperability Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, 1. Intropuction Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology in which data is managed and verified equally by all nodes participating in the network. P2P (Peer-to-Peer) is one of the key features of Blockchain. This structure allows direct communication between users without a central server. Blockchain builds a decentralized system based on P2P, so as Blockchain evolves, so docs P2P. The development of Blockchain can be categorized into four generations. The first generation is Bitcoin, the second is smart contracts, the third is scalability, and the fourth is interoperability. Bitcoin is called the first generation because Blockchain started with it, Developers realized blockchains could be used for more than just documenting transactions, and Ethercum and Smart contracts were born(2nd). While the first and second generations were revolutionary, some fundamental problems exist. One major problem is. scalability. Third-generation blockchains are designed to improve upon these issues, with the leading platform being EOS. Interoperability is the ability to share data between platforms. We define the fourth generation of blockchains as those designed and developed to support communication between different blockchains, A representative platform is Cosmos, Im this paper, we look at how peer-to-peer technology is evolving and being used, with representative platforms from each blockchain generation. In conclusion, this paper can be a foundation for the next generation of P2P network development. I. RELATED Work EX, Lua et al, [1] divide P2P overlay networks into structured and unstructured. After selecting five or six platforms of each structured and unstructured network, they compare them based on nine items: decentralization, architecture, lookup protocol, system parameters, routing performance, routing state, peer join and leave, security, reliability, and fault-resiliency. S. Delgado-Segura ct al. [2] characterize Bitcoin and provide various properties of Meryam Essai Dept. of Robotics Engineering Keimyung University Daegu, Republic of Ko: (0000-0002-7991-9874 Hongtack Ju Dept. of Computer Engincering Keimyung University Daegu, Republic of Korea juht@emu.ac-ke ceryptocurreney networks and their similarities and differences ‘with the standard P2P network paradigm. The paper [2] builds ‘on [1}, borrowing the nine items used in (1} and analyzing Bitcoin against those criteria, This paper also borrows the nine factors mentioned in [1] and [2] but with some modifications to make them suitable for comparing blockchains, Decentralization, Architecture, Pecrs, Lookup Protocol, Consensus Algorithm, Peer Join and Leave, Sccurity, Reliability/Fault-resiliency, and Interoperability are the nine factors covered in this paper, TI, BLOCKCHAIN Basics ‘This section describes the basic behavior and goals of the four blockchains, as well as the status (number of active nodes, number of blocks, and transactions created per day, etc.). Those are summarized in Table | below. In Table 1, the market capitalization [3], number of active nodes, number of blocks, and transactions ercated per day are based on March 24, 2023. The number of active nodes for EOS and Cosmos refers to validators, not total nodes. For Proofof-Stake blockchains, the number of validators is more important than the actual number of nodes, so we investigated this. Sections 3 and 4 are based on the whitepapers and official (or development) sites listed in Table 1 Further more, P2P structures can be categorized into Structured and Unstructured. Structured, according to [1], is when the topology is strictly controlled, and content is not placed in random peers but in designated locations that make subsequent queries more efficiently. These structured P2P systems are based on DHT(Distributed Hash Table), where the location of a data object (or value) is deterministically placed on a peer with an identifier corresponding to the data object's unique key. An example of a structured system is Ethereum. Ethereum uses 2 modified Kademlia protocol, which uses @ DHT to share a list of nodes. An unstructured network consists of peers joining the network with loose rules ‘without prior topology knowledge. The network uses flooding to send queries in an overlay with limited scope. Bitcoin, EOS, and Cosmos are examples of unstructured networks. IV. DEVELOPMENT OF P2P NETWORKS WITH BLOCKCHAIN PLATFORMS In this section, we compare the Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, and Cosmos blockchains described in section 3 based on the P2P perspective such as nine modified elements of a P2P network mentioned in section 2. These are summarized in Table 2 A, Decentralization Decentralization is an valuation of the degree of tion in a network. In this paper, we use Shannon APN cs 23 KES so mtd to: tanbulUnivorstes-Conahasa, Downloaded on February 19,2024 1:5-90 UTC rom IEEE Kole, Rest ona S TABLE [BLOCKCHAIS PLATFORM Basics Flatform/tems Bitcoin -Etherewm EOS) Basic behaviour The fist erypocurrency was but om lockcbain ‘Distibuied computing plasm: for implementing “An aematve to Ethereamie slow processing speeds and Coxmor CCypiocuency for ine chain connections between ‘and goals ology thar contact fictional Tigh fo «diferent blockehains Market Caption | __ ST 15030068 sia ROTRSTB sia s7 8 Sank 6505 1s 7 2 0 200 Wie paper an a i om +10) umber of sn nde a8 5852 21758 7595853 wey a 1109 sou 2.00 ou 16,000 (BPS 70) amber tty dg wae oie be 400,00 out 65000 Entropy (E), Gini Coefficient (G), and Nakamoto Coefficient (N) to evaluate this quantitatively [11]. Since the three methods mentioned above have their own advantages and disadvantages, we analyze the results of existing papers that measure decentralization for four platforms using cach method in Table 2. For Cosmos, which is relatively new, we could not find entropy results. We cannot find Nakamoto coefficient valucs for EOS because there are too many subsystems to consider. Ethereum also did not have many results for its second generation, From a P2P perspective, it makes data processing faster for peers, but it also creates super-peers with more influence in the network. In the case of Ethereum, after the merge, there was a concern that it became less decentralized by switching from PoW to PoS, However, Ethereum and other platforms that use PoS have constraints keep validators honest, including penalties and slashing (economic penalties for violations). This limits the power of super-peers. Furthermore, all platforms become more decentralized over time as the network becomes more robust and participation inereases [11]. Therefore, Biteoin and other less decentralized platforms will continue to grow in decentralization, B. Architecture Architecture is the diagram of a platform and network, It describes the overall structure and operation of the platform, From a P2P perspective, network layers are changing from single to multiple layers to solve scalability. For this, technologies like sharding and off-chain and overlay networks are actively utilized to partition layers and process data faster. Instead of a single pecr containing multiple functions, there are already modules and dacmons that specialize in cach function, and together they become a peer. In addition, it is ceasy to create a node by developing only the app layer, using an SDK (like Tendermint core) that implements both the consensus and networking layers. In other words, as the functions became more diverse, they can be divided into modules, focusing on each role to develop and operate. ©. Peer Peer is about the type and role of the node. Peer is an essential component of P2P. On a blockchain, peers can be categorized into nodes that create blocks and nodes that do tot. It is similar to other P2P platforms (like Torrent), which distinguish between nodes that create and consume data. In addition, with new architectures, blockehains are introducing peers with different functions, such as Sentry Nodes. This _means that peer types are diversifying, Diversifying peer types ccan inerease network stability, performance, and security. In addition, the size of the data, or blocks, is so large that poers can choose how they store data, which can lead to differentiation between peers, which can lead to better performance through optimization. D. Lookup Protocol P2P networks rely on lookup protocols to quickly locate data spread across the network, However, Blockchain does not use lookup protocols because all nodes have the same data, However, some peers, such as lightweight nodes, do not have all the data. They may need to request transactions for validation or blocks for synchronization from other nodes, This is where EOS methods are efficient, Blockchains need to accommodate lookup protocols in P2P networks that are more accurate than Merkle Tree or Bloom Filter to verify the existence of data. In addition, it is notable that the basic function of P2P peers, data transfer, is subdivided into propagation, storage, and retrieval modules within EOS. This modularization is good for both development and performance. Cosmos relies on the Tendermint core for data transfer. It is also noteworthy that there is software that specializes in this basic P2P function. E. Consensus Algorithm A consensus algorithm is how distributed nodes agree on the current state ofa blockchain within a decentralized system, From a P2P perspective, consensus algorithms are significant developments in and of themselves, Tt is a new algorithm created out of necessity as P2P was integrated into the Blockchain. This means that new algorithms can be created to enable P2P on other platforms and that P2P is a comerstone of the evolution of IT technology F. Peer join and leave Peer join and leave describes when peers first join and connect to the network, how they connect, and how they maintain their connections. From a P2P perspective, three changes are noteworthy. First, there is no connection list between peers in blockchains’ first and second generations, and sessions are managed continuously. In the third and fourth generations, each peer's information is recorded and systematically managed through a connection list or address book. Second, Ethereum has its protocols DevP2P and RLPx for connecting P2P networks, and Cosmos uses an existing protocol (PeX) to connect peers. Third, there are additional -Atorizd eansod we mtd tant UniverstasCorahpasa, Download on February 13,2024 1:51:90 UTC rom IEEE Kalo, Reston pp TABLE I. —ComPanisox or Btockcs IAIN POP NETWORKS. Tao iain ihereom Bos Connon © | almining 4514 Tjmining 5860) [iiminingabon se [iat nawork09, | life nwo 034 Cy Decen mining tnnng 39) ining 0.0647 win strat | © (13) mining 0.81 03} mining 0.86 1) [13] mining 0.044% [15] mining 0.7816 sain (ia minte ot {tS rng 0820) 16] mining mining 31 nn, vaio N (017) validator 7349 6} ining 3.31 (0, 122) (16, 17h enintog, validator 6 Cones conse of ab nd Cons ofan Excaion yer | Theeibwohionrtybur | Zone Tae Ha host te lt Fatacitstue with wien or | "anda Consens nye fevevare ditto | “anecdote cle Exestindietsrecetent | “nlimacrsick | Zeorsminleesiet chen Archteture | AnodeTpgegnes mutple | “svecustanacton: Rios | Prodwer(BP) andes or | thatexchngt BC mesg stimnes fang bisa | Ehseum DS The Census | Stier: Nundeigoconssisot | with uk Nod compe Duminingcalcucs.”” | cixmhievercomemas, | "noice (nde): coe(CLD". | "the Coumes pp yer and Trough POS. Taco) Toners cera two er Telquce Cenicon Core : ® TullNde Solo Mine FrodtcerNods, Ns, ate, Seay, oe Lightweight SPV, Pool NNonproducer Node be Alina Ne Sl ‘Protocol Servers. r Lightweight Node, ropa dato pu sl gates ata on 8 us Uses the gossip proto, Useratoding psec | Usesthe gosipprotcotand | NSPE Chain-Conole, | MN Sreesand Lookup | Sicha Moding gonsip protocol and | esr and Lacs. | ggg Qt rronewing tain rope tsi Sending an sein ta via Proved ; ig. | llemented okay pte ; aivGitenervendreqvets. | advetsemertsandrequess | = Tender RP ad 5 taanng st of ck : : Appleton Block anitanacion sss hugh | y-Aplstion loka Nechurns Dap Momoee Bere The Maga tpaied | Oped ws Dalit Poofot | — Opwatedas Teno fsreafarWek Goujand | "Sake DPoandthe | _Bytanine aut Teonte inerereafof Stake (Po, | asnchrenous Sprain Fault | (Tendermnt BFP. Cantass Consensus | opsatedas2iooforwou | Torsomeavaiiaur epee | Tolumee GBD. proms tough bxk ‘ort aw ait depot SETH | Using DPoSto generac | prot posts nd p= netic pepese randomly | anlabPT to decree fiat | cont pas 2 mary Steed angie velo, | ‘Wock Prom woromisot | vote) A ears cleted by “rent the tock rome tehted ramon Reccvealarofpeemasing | Revchealutofpess oma] Resiea ist of pees trough Kadonincscd DWT afer | thvotwal-inown Enipomse | ihe Soa noe Svein te ecsveatitotpentnongn | Sine instars to | Bowne Came winter | sae boa Tyago ; Rese atop theagh | mS Sa comet ANE ‘oo va anda ‘subls pnisea reer doin | ‘static DNGseatnads | "Setigpecra | costa Memgrcrmiim | _comotetyipesinge and ene | imesieipeodallyexcings | piSciPONG ccuing. | useipeenna omecton | Potent Pear Cong te Per PINGIPONG messue wD | maintaining and dscomnecting | “List equcsted information, | Exchange Protocol P=X). sages between mods 118. | "mr ween ents | sokersa ede Dust | Removing pea fom he TiPpwocolarineDatay | ""Hatstcke nsunce ies bok fit ike rool sk eave oe) come or ta et Bleck vasionsperioned | Block valaton isang | Buck alton is on by Sythe Valdas Chen Gooumbaweentiek | salaor voting Trnsston Bockyalationistassion | _apccigand proving ne | peduum, Tanacton | "vlan med by ProforWorandtanacton | Besson Blok acting he | valdntonsupprs fund | chskSut des ay, valitonsjetmedy "| cover peak, stig to, | phtmotes Te vaidason | owner) ot eine sccurty | HesenprabkeysUninckie | “Trmtios re vatinedy | gnne te esstons oc (Chak , Sip scope Menage | "Chckpot rit Bleck of ‘hoking the Acton Vatitebas Delve) sigung puts key used | Eachtpach/andsigmnue. | Pemistens and snpunne he | Sipangis dene wih TEP TaMG admis | Siuaetmactoneins | ‘Mekietscitab hubie’ | SiON MODE DIRECT ad Sipautenciods | pantickey Fasltyentioed | “andpivactensisrie’ | SIGN MODE LEGACY: AM Sfiwo-nnicvungoatingon | vanneton die Conoling | “INO-ISON nathods wiles the Cue chon ron Peis packey Spiess 61% Aiwa) | DPSisvanenbiio Shi | BET cones lgoimio Chugh os alsodcends | atacl(enmlzaton dicto | "revet Doble Spending gamtataclstyimposmpa | "“hetcgas) Paris | Aducain he Byatine Zan. silat Byzamine Fat | “Goren Peniyugh’ | symcnmzaton yaar | "Cosmos tbs ndock Ratabitiy | QiaroW. tigeavintiy | cilbeel Delage’ | neerofaprn Syne Lib | propane aig coma Eat | Sacdgr daa eidty al | “Bele tacts togh | cachap MEADeaciap | Tages ar sli 7 ‘nodes. ‘S'Kademlia. Supports various | manages a copy of the block as | deterministically. They may be Syackoniton mes Fal coal han and “tinenblew DDes tac TatLigit Opiate | loctimacton nfomaton | "theca the Sent) Chaco rh eae ‘auble Ahitcre wi npn Tnteropeabit | Tghingocvak Taplonewsad | Msainge fiscchia witha [Papua orintsopeitiy | thin. nplomened with * byratings wewsy | Bescenchan.Commuening | MotleTwok frLigh chen |" shelmer Bich -Atorizd eansod we mtd tant UniverstosCorahpasa, Download on February 13,2024 1:51:90 UTC rom IEEE Kolo, Restos pp communication channel ‘rough mul-sgnature and "Bitoi's smart contact protocol (TLC; Hashed TimeLock Conte) Tetwsen the two ters witha local RPC connection (Engine APD. Shang ENR (hereur ‘Node Reco including kes) between er lens ‘Validation (LCV) proposal Addressing intet-hain ‘communication leny with ineversity im BET Proof of | interchain connectivity is ‘complemen with the Acton | implemented through Pepe Sequence number Zon, ‘Communication (IBC) protocol sd hierarchical pattoning of HubvZone. Hetrogencous functions for connecting peers, such as Persistent Peer in smos. Al three of these changes mean that protocols are becoming more structured, specialized, and diversified as the importance of peer connectivity in P2P networks increases. G. Security Security deals with the signing and validation of messag All platforms perform block validation based on their consensus algorithms. The security implications of this paper are also significant in their own right because, like the consensus algorithm, they introduce a new process that does not exist from a P2P perspective. Hi, Reliability and Fault Resiliency Reliability and Fault Resiliency describe reliability due to data availability and resiliency to attacks. In blockchains, node attack can be prevented by consensus algorithms, malicious node by penalties, and synchronization attack by validation or multiple synchronization modes, As P2P is combined with Blockchain, some attacks are naturally solved, and others are newly created (Double Spending Attacks). In addition, if a new two-layer architecture is proposed (Cosmos), it is complemented by a new architecture (Sentry Architecture). In other words, Blockchain itself ean be a solution to existing P2P network security problems and a source for new security methods. 1. Interoperability Interoperability deals with the off-chain, connecting existing chains to new ones and connecting heterogeneous chains. From a P2P perspective, interoperability is sharing data between different networks. This expands the network and makes it more usable and accessible. P2P networks aro moving towards multi-layer structures like Ethercum and Cosmos to achieve interoperability beyond overlay networks like Bitooin, Gnutella, and BitTorrent. In addition, Cosmos proposes pratocols and architectures to support heterogencous chains, i.e, communication between different networks, to scale P2P networks truly. V. ConcLusion In this paper, we divide the development of Blockchain into four generations and compare representative platforms of teach generation based on the perspectives of P2P technology. The comparison shows that Blockchain focuses on solving the scalability problem for practical applications such as electronic retail transactions. As a result, blockchain evolution diversifies, systematizes, and specializes in the architecture, peers, and lookup protocols of P2P networks. In particular, diversification increases the stability of the network. In addition, the interest in interoperability between chains has increased. In the fourth gencration, there are cven chains designed for interoperability (Cosmos, Polkadot, ctc.). The design of these chains can also be applied to P2P networks, meaning that the evolution of blockchains follows the evolution of P2P networks and can be utilized in other areas that use P2P networks (IPRS, IoT, energy sharing, chat apps, etc). ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2023R1A2C2006045), REFERENCES [1] BK. la, J Cromer M, Piss Sharma and Lim, "A survey and comparison of peee-o-peet ovetay network schemes", in IEEE ‘Communications Surveys & Tutor, yo. 7, 0.2, pp. 7293, Sesond (Quarter 2005, dos 10. 1091COMST 2005. 1610536. 2} S.Delgndo-Segura . Pérez-Sol, J Herrera Joancomart, G, Navaro ‘Auibas and J. Borel, "Cryplocutency Networks: A. New P2P Paradign, Mobile information Systems, vol. 2018, do 10.155/26182159082 LB} Blockchaincom, Prices-Market Cap, hitpsfhwww:blockshaincom, (accessed: March 2023) [A] Satoshi Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer clestonic cash system” titps:/biteoinorgibitoin pl, 2008 [5] Fohereum, hereum Whitepaper, Development Documentation, roadmap ipsetereum org, (accessed: ApEI2023) [6} BOS, EOS Developer Documentation, ntp.s/does comnetwork comidoevatet, (accessed: April 2023) [7] BOSI0 Developers, EOSIO Developer Doc, hips:/devslpers.c080, (aecessed = April 2023) [8] Cosmos, Cosmos. Whitepaper, tps. cosmos networkl resources! whitepaper, (cessed » April 2023) [9] Cosmos SDK, Cosmos SDK Documentation, bntps:des cosmos nctwork main (accessed: April 2023) 10} Tendermint Core, Tendermint Core Documentation, Intp:s/does endermint.com, (accessed: April 2023) [11] P. Chung and Y. Choy, "Measuring blockchain orbit Research, 2022, [12] S.P. Gocthayat,S. Shoty, R. Mukkamala, P Foy, 0, A. Kambou and L Nill, "Measuring Decentrality in Blockchan Based Systems in TREE Acces, vol. 8 pp. 178472-178390, 2020, doi 10.1109/ACCESS 2020,3026577 U3] ¥. Koon, M. Kim, D. Song and Y. Kim, “impossibility of full

    You might also like