nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

An Empirical Analysis of Smart Contracts: Platforms, Applications, and Design Patterns

verfasst von : Massimo Bartoletti, Livio Pompianu

Erschienen in: Financial Cryptography and Data Security

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Smart contracts are computer programs that can be consistently executed by a network of mutually distrusting nodes, without the arbitration of a trusted authority. Because of their resilience to tampering, smart contracts are appealing in many scenarios, especially in those which require transfers of money to respect certain agreed rules (like in financial services and in games). Over the last few years many platforms for smart contracts have been proposed, and some of them have been actually implemented and used. We study how the notion of smart contract is interpreted in some of these platforms. Focussing on the two most widespread ones, Bitcoin and Ethereum, we quantify the usage of smart contracts in relation to their application domain. We also analyse the most common programming patterns in Ethereum, where the source code of smart contracts is available.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel A Concurrent Perspective on Smart Contracts

Nächstes Kapitel Trust in Smart Contracts is a Process, As Well

http://www.coindesk.com/category/technology/smart-contracts-news.

As far as we know, currently only the Eligius mining pool accepts more general transactions (called non-standard in the Bitcoin community). However, this pool only mines \(\sim 1\%\) of the total mined blocks [20].

The consensus mechanism of Ethereum is a variant of the GHOST protocol in [46].

Solidity: http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/index.html.

See FAQ: How do Smart Contracts “form a consensus” on Counterparty? http://counterparty.io/docs/faq-smartcontracts/#how-do-smart-contracts-form-a-consensus-on-counterparty.

https://www.stellar.org/developers/guides/concepts/operations.html.

https://tendermint.com/.

https://lisk.io/documentation?i=lisk-handbooks/DelegateHandbook.

https://redd.it/5om2lw.

Sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-total (for Bitcoin), https://blockscan.com (Counterparty), and https://etherscan.io (Ethereum).

Market capitalization estimated by http://coinmarketcap.com.

https://github.com/BitcoinOpReturn/OpReturnTool.

Bitcoin financial contracts: Colu, CoinSpark, OpenAssets, Omni, SmartBit, BitPos.

Bitcoin notary contracts: Factom, Stampery, Proof of Existence, Blocksign, Crypto-Copyright, Stampd, BitProof, ProveBit, Remembr, OriginalMy, LaPreuve, Nicosia, Chainpoint, Diploma, Monegraph, Blockai, Ascribe, Eternity Wall, Blockstore.

Although the Ethereum virtual machine is designed to be Turing-complete, in practice the limitations on the amount of gas which can be used to invoke contracts also limit the set of computable functions (e.g., verifying checkmate exceeds the current gas limits of a transaction [35]).

http://www.oraclize.it/.

Bitcoin contract. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Bitcoin OP_RETURN wiki page. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Dgx website. https://www.dgx.io/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Ethereum hard fork 20 July 2016. https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Ethereum request for comment 20. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Standardized_Contract_APIs. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Lisk. https://lisk.io/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Making sense of blockchain smart contracts. http://www.coindesk.com/making-sense-smart-contracts/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Monax. https://monax.io/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

Smart contracts: The good, the bad and the lazy. http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/smart-contracts-good-bad-lazy/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

10.

Stellar. https://www.stellar.org/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

11.

The Stellar consensus protocol. https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

12.

Thinking about smart contract security. https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

13.

Understanding the DAO attack. http://www.coindesk.com/understanding-dao-hack-journalists/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

14.

Another bug in the ens, you can win with an unlimited high bid without paying for it (2017). https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5zctus/another_bug_in_the_ens_you_can_win_with_an/. Accessed 17 Mar 2017

15.

Anderson, L., Holz, R., Ponomarev, A., Rimba, P., Weber, I.: New kids on the block: an analysis of modern blockchains. CoRR abs/1606.06530 (2016)

16.

Andrychowicz, M., Dziembowski, S., Malinowski, D., Mazurek, L.: Secure multiparty computations on Bitcoin. In: IEEE S & P, pp. 443–458 (2014)

17.

Andrychowicz, M., Dziembowski, S., Malinowski, D., Mazurek, L.: Secure ultiparty computations on Bitcoin. Commun. ACM 59(4), 76–84 (2016). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2896386 CrossRef

18.

Atzei, N., Bartoletti, M., Cimoli, T.: A survey of attacks on ethereum smart contracts (SoK). In: Maffei, M., Ryan, M. (eds.) POST 2017. LNCS, vol. 10204, pp. 164–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54455-6_8 CrossRef

19.

Back, A., Bentov, I.: Note on fair coin toss via Bitcoin (2013). http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~idddo/cointossBitcoin.pdf

20.

Banasik, W., Dziembowski, S., Malinowski, D.: Efficient zero-knowledge contingent payments in cryptocurrencies without scripts. In: Askoxylakis, I., Ioannidis, S., Katsikas, S., Meadows, C. (eds.) ESORICS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9879, pp. 261–280. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45741-3_14 CrossRef

21.

Baqer, K., Huang, D.Y., McCoy, D., Weaver, N.: Stressing out: Bitcoin “stress testing”. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 3–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_1 CrossRef

22.

Bartoletti, M., Carta, S., Cimoli, T., Saia, R.: Dissecting Ponzi schemes on Ethereum: identification, analysis, and impact. CoRR abs/1703.03779 (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03779

23.

Bartoletti, M., Pompianu, L.: An analysis of Bitcoin OP_RETURN metadata. CoRR abs/1702.01024 (2016). To appear in Bitcoin Workshop 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01024

24.

Bentov, I., Kumaresan, R.: How to use Bitcoin to design fair protocols. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014. LNCS, vol. 8617, pp. 421–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44381-1_24 CrossRef

25.

Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Gollamudi, A., Gonthier, G., Kobeissi, N., Rastogi, A., Sibut-Pinote, T., Swamy, N., Zanella-Beguelin, S.: Formal verification of smart contracts. In: PLAS (2016)

26.

Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: SoK: research perspectives and challenges for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: IEEE S & P, pp. 104–121 (2015)

27.

Brown, R.G., Carlyle, J., Grigg, I., Hearn, M.: Corda: an introduction (2016). http://r3cev.com/s/corda-introductory-whitepaper-final.pdf

28.

Buterin, V.: Ethereum: a next generation smart contract and decentralized application platform (2013). https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper

29.

Churyumov, A.: Byteball: a decentralized system for transfer of value (2016). https://byteball.org/Byteball.pdf

30.

Clack, C.D., Bakshi, V.A., Braine, L.: Smart contract templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions. CoRR abs/1608.00771 (2016)

31.

Delmolino, K., Arnett, M., Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E.: Step by step towards creating a safe smart contract: lessons and insights from a cryptocurrency lab. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 79–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_6 CrossRef

32.

Dermody, R., Krellenstein, A., Slama, O., Wagner, E.: Counterparty: Protocol specification (2014). http://counterparty.io/docs/protocol_specification/. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

33.

Frantz, C.K., Nowostawski, M.: From institutions to code: towards automated generation of smart contracts. In: Workshop on Engineering Collective Adaptive Systems (eCAS) (2016)

34.

Glaser, F., Zimmermann, K., Haferkorn, M., Weber, M.C.: Bitcoin - asset or currency? revealing users’ hidden intentions. In: European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2014)

35.

Grau, P.: Lessons learned from making a chess game for Ethereum (2016). https://medium.com/@graycoding/lessons-learned-from-making-a-chess-game-for-ethereum-6917c01178b6#.fwtdwly6e. Accessed 14 Jan 2017

36.

Kumaresan, R., Moran, T., Bentov, I.: How to use Bitcoin to play decentralized poker. In: ACM CCS, pp. 195–206 (2015)

37.

Luu, L., Chu, D.H., Olickel, H., Saxena, P., Hobor, A.: Making smart contracts smarter. In: ACM CCS (2016). http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/633

38.

Marino, B., Juels, A.: Setting standards for altering and undoing smart contracts. In: Alferes, J.J.J., Bertossi, L., Governatori, G., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2016. LNCS, vol. 9718, pp. 151–166. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42019-6_10 CrossRef

39.

Möser, M., Böhme, R.: Trends, tips, tolls: a longitudinal study of Bitcoin transaction fees. In: Brenner, M., Christin, N., Johnson, B., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2015. LNCS, vol. 8976, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48051-9_2 CrossRef

40.

Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

41.

Nomura Research Institute: Survey on blockchain technologies and related services. http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2016/pdf/0531_01f.pdf

42.

Popejoy, S.: The Pact smart contract language (2016). http://kadena.io/pact

43.

Reid, F., Harrigan, M.: An analysis of anonymity in the Bitcoin system. In: Altshuler, Y., Elovici, Y., Cremers, A., Aharony, N., Pentland, A. (eds.) Security and Privacy in Social Networks, pp. 197–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4139-7_10 CrossRef

44.

Ron, D., Shamir, A.: Quantitative analysis of the full Bitcoin transaction graph. In: Sadeghi, A.-R. (ed.) FC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7859, pp. 6–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39884-1_2 CrossRef

45.

Seijas, P.L., Thompson, S., McAdams, D.: Scripting smart contracts for distributed ledger technology. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/1156 (2016). http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1156

46.

Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: Secure high-rate transaction processing in Bitcoin. In: Böhme, R., Okamoto, T. (eds.) FC 2015. LNCS, vol. 8975, pp. 507–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47854-7_32 CrossRef

47.

Szabo, N.: Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday 2(9) (1997). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/548

48.

UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser: Distributed ledger technology: beyond block chain. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf

49.

Wood, G.: Ethereum: a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger (2014). http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf

Titel: An Empirical Analysis of Smart Contracts: Platforms, Applications, and Design Patterns
verfasst von: Massimo Bartoletti
Livio Pompianu
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Financial Cryptography and Data Security
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70277-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-70278-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_31

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner