IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/intnem/v30y2020i5ne2093.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weighted voting on the blockchain: Improving consensus in proof of stake protocols

Author

Listed:
  • Stefanos Leonardos
  • Daniël Reijsbergen
  • Georgios Piliouras

Abstract

Proof of stake (PoS) protocols rely on voting mechanisms to reach consensus on the current state. If an enhanced majority of staking nodes, also called validators, agree on a proposed block, then this block is appended to the blockchain. Yet these protocols remain vulnerable to faults caused by validators who abstain either accidentally or maliciously. To protect against such faults while retaining the PoS selection and reward allocation schemes, we study weighted voting in validator committees. We formalize the block creation process and introduce validators' voting profiles which we update by a multiplicative weights algorithm relative to validators' voting behavior and aggregate blockchain rewards. Using this framework, we leverage weighted majority voting rules that optimize collective decision making to show, both numerically and analytically, that the consensus mechanism is more robust if validators' votes are appropriately scaled. We raise potential issues and limitations of weighted voting in trustless, decentralized networks and relate our results to the design of current PoS protocols.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefanos Leonardos & Daniël Reijsbergen & Georgios Piliouras, 2020. "Weighted voting on the blockchain: Improving consensus in proof of stake protocols," International Journal of Network Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:intnem:v:30:y:2020:i:5:n:e2093
    DOI: 10.1002/nem.2093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/nem.2093
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nem.2093?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben-Yashar, Ruth C & Nitzan, Shmuel I, 1997. "The Optimal Decision Rule for Fixed-Size Committees in Dichotomous Choice Situations: The General Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 38(1), pages 175-186, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hans Gersbach & Akaki Mamageishvili & Manvir Schneider, 2021. "Vote Delegation and Misbehavior," Papers 2102.08823, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    2. Alon Benhaim & Brett Hemenway Falk & Gerry Tsoukalas, 2021. "Scaling Blockchains: Can Committee-Based Consensus Help?," Papers 2110.08673, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Beyond Condorcet: optimal aggregation rules using voting records," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 113-130, January.
    2. Jan Marc Berk & Beata K. Bierut, 2005. "Communication in Monetary Policy Committees," DNB Working Papers 059, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    3. Baharad, Eyal & Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Patal, Tal, 2020. "On the merit of non-specialization in the context of majority voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 128-133.
    4. Dmitry Ryvkin & Andreas Ortmann, 2008. "The Predictive Power of Three Prominent Tournament Formats," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 492-504, March.
    5. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "Are Referees Sufficiently Informed About The Editor'S Practice?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 1-11, August.
    6. Christian List, 2002. "On the Significance of the Absolute Margin," Public Economics 0211004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Winston Koh & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Is specialization desirable in committee decision making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 341-357, March.
    8. Roland Kirstein, "undated". "The Condorcet Jury-Theorem with Two Independent Error-Probabilities," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2006-1-1154, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    9. Sven Berg & Antonio Marañon, 2001. "Collective Decisional Skill and Decisive Voting Games - Some Results," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 389-403, September.
    10. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Leif Danziger, 2014. "On the optimal composition of committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 973-980, December.
    11. Michael Christensen & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2006. "Organizational Design and Resource Evaluation," DRUID Working Papers 06-05, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    12. Ruth Ben‐Yashar & Jacob Paroush, 2003. "Investment in Human Capital in Team Members Who Are Involved in Collective Decision Making," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(3), pages 527-539, July.
    13. Ronald Britto, 2000. "Committee Decision Making: The Multicategory Case," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(3), pages 764-769, January.
    14. BAHARAD, Eyal & BEN-YASHAR, Ruth & NITZAN, Shmuel, 2018. "Variable Competence and Collective Performance: Unanimity vs. Simple Majority Rule," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-80, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    15. Felipe A. Csaszar & J. P. Eggers, 2013. "Organizational Decision Making: An Information Aggregation View," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2257-2277, October.
    16. Hahn, Volker, 2011. "Sequential aggregation of verifiable information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1447-1454.
    17. Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann, 2021. "Social Epistemology," Post-Print halshs-02431971, HAL.
    18. Dietrich, Franz & Spiekermann, Kai, 2016. "Jury Theorems," MPRA Paper 72951, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2019. "Skill, value and remuneration in committees," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 93-95.
    20. Roy Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2022. "One person, one weight: when is weighted voting democratic?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 467-493, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:intnem:v:30:y:2020:i:5:n:e2093. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1190 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.