arXiv subjects

Lioba Heimbach

Publications and source records attributed to Lioba Heimbach.

33 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2023

Dissecting the EIP-2930 Optional Access Lists

Ethereum introduced Transaction Access Lists (TALs) in 2020 to optimize gas costs during transaction execution. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis of TALs in Ethereum, focusing on adoption, quality, and gas savings. Analyzing a full month of mainnet data with 31,954,474 transactions, we found that only 1.46% of transactions included a TAL, even though 42.6% of transactions would have benefited from it. On average, access lists can save around 0.29% of gas costs, equivalent to approximately 3,450 ETH (roughly US$ 5 Mio) per year. However, 19.6% of TALs included by transactions contained imperfections, causing almost 11.8% of transactions to pay more gas with TAL than without. We find that these inaccuracies are caused by the unknown state at the time of the TAL computation as well as imperfect TAL computations provided by all major Ethereum clients. We thus compare the gas savings when calculating the TAL at the beginning of the block vs. calculating it on the correct state, to find that the unknown state is a major source of TAL inaccuracies. Finally, we implement an ideal TAL computation for the Erigon client to highlight the cost of these flawed implementations.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2023

Ethereum's Proposer-Builder Separation: Promises and Realities

With Ethereum's transition from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake in September 2022 came another paradigm shift, the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) scheme. PBS was introduced to decouple the roles of selecting and ordering transactions in a block (i.e., the builder), from those validating its contents and proposing the block to the network as the new head of the blockchain (i.e., the proposer). In this landscape, proposers are the validators in the Proof-of-Stake consensus protocol, while now relying on specialized block builders for creating blocks with the highest value for the proposer. Additionally, relays act as mediators between builders and proposers. We study PBS adoption and show that the current landscape exhibits significant centralization amongst the builders and relays. Further, we explore whether PBS effectively achieves its intended objectives of enabling hobbyist validators to maximize block profitability and preventing censorship. Our findings reveal that although PBS grants validators the opportunity to access optimized and competitive blocks, it tends to stimulate censorship rather than reduce it. Additionally, we demonstrate that relays do not consistently uphold their commitments and may prove unreliable. Specifically, proposers do not always receive the complete promised value, and the censorship or filtering capabilities pledged by relays exhibit significant gaps.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2023

Ethereum Proof-of-Stake Consensus Layer: Participation and Decentralization

In September 2022, Ethereum transitioned from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) during "the merge" - making it the largest PoS cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization. With this work, we present a comprehensive measurement study of the current state of the Ethereum PoS consensus layer on the beacon chain. We perform a longitudinal study of the history of the beacon chain. Our work finds that all dips in network participation are caused by network upgrades, issues with major consensus clients, or issues with service operators controlling a large number of validators. Further, our longitudinal staking power decentralization analysis reveals that Ethereum PoS fairs similarly to its PoW counterpart in terms of decentralization and exhibits the immense impact of (liquid) staking services on staking power decentralization. Finally, we highlight the heightened security concerns in Ethereum PoS caused by high degrees of centralization.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2023

DeFi Lending During The Merge

Lending protocols in decentralized finance enable the permissionless exchange of capital from lenders to borrowers without relying on a trusted third party for clearing or market-making. Interest rates are set by the supply and demand of capital according to a pre-defined function. In the lead-up to The Merge: Ethereum blockchain's transition from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), a fraction of the Ethereum ecosystem announced plans of continuing with a PoW-chain. Owners of ETH - whether their ETH was borrowed or not - would hold the native tokens on each chain. This development alarmed lending protocols. They feared spiking ETH borrowing rates would lead to mass liquidations which could undermine their viability. Thus, the decentralized autonomous organization running the protocols saw no alternative to intervention - restricting users' ability to borrow. We investigate the effects of the merge and the aforementioned intervention on the two biggest lending protocols on Ethereum: AAVE and Compound. Our analysis finds that borrowing rates were extremely volatile, jumping by two orders of magnitude, and borrowing at times reached 100% of the available funds. Despite this, no spike in mass liquidations or irretrievable loans materialized. Further, we are the first to quantify and analyze hard-fork-arbitrage, profiting from holding debt in the native blockchain token during a hard fork. We find that arbitrageurs transferred tokens to centralized exchanges which at the time were worth more than 13 Mio US$, money that was effectively extracted from the platforms' lenders.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2023

Base Fee Manipulation In Ethereum's EIP-1559 Transaction Fee Mechanism

In 2021 Ethereum adjusted the transaction pricing mechanism by implementing EIP-1559, which introduces the base fee - a network fee that is burned and dynamically adjusts to the network demand. The authors of the Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) noted that a miner with more than 50% of the mining power could be incentivized to deviate from the honest mining strategy. Instead, such a miner could propose a series of empty blocks to artificially lower demand and increase her future rewards. In this paper, we generalize this attack and show that under rational player behavior, deviating from the honest strategy can be profitable for a miner with less than 50% of the mining power. We show that even when miners do not collaborate, it is at times rational for smaller miners to join the attack. Finally, we propose a mitigation to address the identified vulnerability.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

Short Squeeze in DeFi Lending Market: Decentralization in Jeopardy?

Anxiety levels in the Aave community spiked in November 2022 as Avi Eisenberg performed an attack on Aave. Eisenberg attempted to short the CRV token by using funds borrowed on the protocol to artificially deflate the value of CRV. While the attack was ultimately unsuccessful, it left the Aave community scared and even raised question marks regarding the feasibility of large lending platforms under decentralized governance. In this work, we analyze Avi Eisenberg's actions and show how he was able to artificially lower the price of CRV by selling large quantities of borrowed CRV for stablecoins on both decentralized and centralized exchanges. Despite the failure of his attack, it still led to irretrievable debt worth more than 1.5 Mio USD at the time and, thereby, quadrupled the protocol's irretrievable debt. Furthermore, we highlight that his attack was enabled by the vast proportion of CRV available to borrow as well as Aave's lending protocol design hindering rapid intervention. We stress Eisenberg's attack exposes a predicament of large DeFi lending protocols: limit the scope or compromise on 'decentralization'.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

DeFi and NFTs Hinder Blockchain Scalability

Many classical blockchains are known to have an embarrassingly low transaction throughput, down to Bitcoin's notorious seven transactions per second limit.Various proposals and implementations for increasing throughput emerged in the first decade of blockchain research. But how much concurrency is possible? In their early days, blockchains were mostly used for simple transfers from user to user. More recently, however, decentralized finance (DeFi) and NFT marketplaces have completely changed what is happening on blockchains. Both are built using smart contracts and have gained significant popularity. Transactions on DeFi and NFT marketplaces often interact with the same smart contracts. We believe this development has transformed blockchain usage. In our work, we perform a historical analysis of Ethereum's transaction graph. We study how much interaction between transactions there was historically and how much there is now. We find that the rise of DeFi and NFT marketplaces has led to an increase in "centralization" in the transaction graph. More transactions are now interconnected: currently there are around 200 transactions per block with 4000 interdependencies between them. We further find that the parallelizability of Ethereum's current interconnected transaction workload is limited. A speedup exceeding a factor of five is currently unrealistic.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2022

Exploring Price Accuracy on Uniswap V3 in Times of Distress

Financial markets have evolved over centuries, and exchanges have converged to rely on the order book mechanism for market making. Latency on the blockchain, however, has prevented decentralized exchanges (DEXes) from utilizing the order book mechanism and instead gave rise to the development of market designs that are better suited to a blockchain. Although the first widely popularized DEX, Uniswap V2, stood out through its astonishing simplicity, a recent design overhaul introduced with Uniswap V3 has introduced increasing levels of complexity aiming to increase capital efficiency. In this work, we empirically study the ability of Unsiwap V3 to handle unexpected price shocks. Our analysis finds that the prices on Uniswap V3 were inaccurate during the recent abrupt price drops of two stablecoins: UST and USDT. We identify the lack of agility required of Unsiwap V3 liquidity providers as the root cause of these worrying price inaccuracies. Additionally, we outline that there are too few incentives for liquidity providers to enter liquidity pools, given the elevated volatility in such market conditions.

q-fin.PR↗

arXiv2022

Risks and Returns of Uniswap V3 Liquidity Providers

Trade execution on Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes) is automatic and does not require individual buy and sell orders to be matched. Instead, liquidity aggregated in pools from individual liquidity providers enables trading between cryptocurrencies. The largest DEX measured by trading volume, Uniswap V3, promises a DEX design optimized for capital efficiency. However, Uniswap V3 requires far more decisions from liquidity providers than previous DEX designs. In this work, we develop a theoretical model to illustrate the choices faced by Uniswap V3 liquidity providers and their implications. Our model suggests that providing liquidity on Uniswap V3 is highly complex and requires many considerations from a user. Our supporting data analysis of the risks and returns of real Uniswap V3 liquidity providers underlines that liquidity providing in Uniswap V3 is incredibly complicated, and performances can vary wildly. While there are simple and profitable strategies for liquidity providers in liquidity pools characterized by negligible price volatilities, these strategies only yield modest returns. Instead, significant returns can only be obtained by accepting increased financial risks and at the cost of active management. Thus, providing liquidity has become a game reserved for sophisticated players with the introduction of Uniswap V3, where retail traders do not stand a chance.

q-fin.RM↗

arXiv2022

SoK: Preventing Transaction Reordering Manipulations in Decentralized Finance

User transactions on Ethereum's peer-to-peer network are at risk of being attacked. The smart contracts building decentralized finance (DeFi) have introduced a new transaction ordering dependency to the Ethereum blockchain. As a result, attackers can profit from front- and back-running transactions. Multiple approaches to mitigate transaction reordering manipulations have surfaced recently. However, the success of individual approaches in mitigating such attacks and their impact on the entire blockchain remains largely unstudied. In this systematization of knowledge (SoK), we categorize and analyze state-of-the-art transaction reordering manipulation mitigation schemes. Instead of restricting our analysis to a scheme's success at preventing transaction reordering attacks, we evaluate its full impact on the blockchain. Therefore, we are able to provide a complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses of current mitigation schemes. We find that currently no scheme fully meets all the demands of the blockchain ecosystem. In fact, all approaches demonstrate unsatisfactory performance in at least one area relevant to the blockchain ecosystem.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2022

An Empirical Study of Market Inefficiencies in Uniswap and SushiSwap

Decentralized exchanges are revolutionizing finance. With their ever-growing increase in popularity, a natural question that begs to be asked is: how efficient are these new markets? We find that nearly 30% of analyzed trades are executed at an unfavorable rate. Additionally, we observe that, especially during the DeFi summer in 2020, price inaccuracies across the market plagued DEXes. Uniswap and SushiSwap, however, quickly adapt to their increased volumes. We see an increase in market efficiency with time during the observation period. Nonetheless, the DEXes still struggle to track the reference market when cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile. During such periods of high volatility, we observe the market becoming less efficient - manifested by an increased prevalence in cyclic arbitrage opportunities.

cs.CE↗

arXiv2022

Eliminating Sandwich Attacks with the Help of Game Theory

Predatory trading bots lurking in Ethereum's mempool present invisible taxation of traders on automated market makers (AMMs). AMM traders specify a slippage tolerance to indicate the maximum price movement they are willing to accept. This way, traders avoid automatic transaction failure in case of small price movements before their trade request executes. However, while a too-small slippage tolerance may lead to trade failures, a too-large slippage tolerance allows predatory trading bots to profit from sandwich attacks. These bots can extract the difference between the slippage tolerance and the actual price movement as profit. In this work, we introduce the sandwich game to analyze sandwich attacks analytically from both the attacker and victim perspectives. Moreover, we provide a simple and highly effective algorithm that traders can use to set the slippage tolerance. We unveil that most broadcasted transactions can avoid sandwich attacks while simultaneously only experiencing a low risk of transaction failure. Thereby, we demonstrate that a constant auto-slippage cannot adjust to varying trade sizes and pool characteristics. Our algorithm outperforms the constant auto-slippage suggested by the biggest AMM, Uniswap, in all performed tests. Specifically, our algorithm repeatedly demonstrates a cost reduction exceeding a factor of 100.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Behavior of Liquidity Providers in Decentralized Exchanges

Decentralized exchanges (DEXes) have introduced an innovative trading mechanism, where it is not necessary to match buy-orders and sell-orders to execute a trade. DEXes execute each trade individually, and the exchange rate is automatically determined by the ratio of assets reserved in the market. Therefore, apart from trading, financial players can also liquidity providers, benefiting from transaction fees from trades executed in DEXes. Although liquidity providers are essential for the functionality of DEXes, it is not clear how liquidity providers behave in such markets. In this paper, we aim to understand how liquidity providers react to market information and how they benefit from providing liquidity in DEXes. We measure the operations of liquidity providers on Uniswap and analyze how they determine their investment strategy based on market changes. We also reveal their returns and risks of investments in different trading pair categories, i.e., stable pairs, normal pairs, and exotic pairs. Further, we investigate the movement of liquidity between trading pools. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that systematically studies the behavior of liquidity providers in DEXes.

q-fin.CP↗

arXiv2021

FnF-BFT: Exploring Performance Limits of BFT Protocols

We introduce FnF-BFT, a parallel-leader byzantine fault-tolerant state-machine replication protocol for the partially synchronous model with theoretical performance bounds during synchrony. By allowing all replicas to act as leaders and propose requests independently, FnF-BFT parallelizes the execution of requests. Leader parallelization distributes the load over the entire network -- increasing throughput by overcoming the single-leader bottleneck. We further use historical data to ensure that well-performing replicas are in command. FnF-BFT's communication complexity is linear in the number of replicas during synchrony and thus competitive with state-of-the-art protocols. Finally, with FnF-BFT, we introduce a BFT protocol with performance guarantees in stable network conditions under truly byzantine attacks. A prototype implementation of \prot outperforms (state-of-the-art) HotStuff's throughput, especially as replicas increase, showcasing \prot's significantly improved scaling capabilities.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2019

Ride the Lightning: The Game Theory of Payment Channels

Payment channels were introduced to solve various eminent cryptocurrency scalability issues. Multiple payment channels build a network on top of a blockchain, the so-called layer 2. In this work, we analyze payment networks through the lens of network creation games. We identify betweenness and closeness centrality as central concepts regarding payment networks. We study the topologies that emerge when players act selfishly and determine the parameter space in which they constitute a Nash equilibrium. Moreover, we determine the social optima depending on the correlation of betweenness and closeness centrality. When possible, we bound the price of anarchy. We also briefly discuss the price of stability.

cs.GT↗