SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Murdoch Gabbay

Publications and source records attributed to Murdoch Gabbay.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Semitopology: a topological approach to decentralised collaborative action

We introduce semitopology, a generalisation of point-set topology that removes the restriction that intersections of open sets need necessarily be open. The intuition is that points represent participants in a decentralised system, and open sets represent collections of participants that collectively have the authority to collaborate to update their local state; we call this an actionable coalition. Examples of actionable coalition include: majority stakes in proof-of-stake blockchains; communicating peers in peer-to-peer networks; and even pedestrians working together to not bump into one another in the street. Where actionable coalitions exist, they have in common that: collaborations are local (updating the states of the participants in the coalition, but not immediately those of the whole system); collaborations are voluntary (up to and including breaking rules); participants may be heterogeneous in their computing power or in their goals (not all pedestrians want to go to the same place); participants can choose with whom to collaborate; and they are not assumed subject to permission or synchronisation by a central authority. We develop a topology-flavoured mathematics that goes some way to explaining how and why these complex decentralised systems can exhibit order, and gives us new ways to understand existing practical implementations.

cs.LO

Money grows on (proof-)trees: the formal FA1.2 ledger standard

Once you have invented digital money, you may need a ledger to track who owns what -- and an interface to that ledger so that users of your money can transact. On the Tezos blockchain this implies: a smart contract (distributed program), storing in its state a ledger to map owner addresses to token quantities, and standardised entrypoints to transact on accounts. A bank does a similar job -- it maps account numbers to account quantities and permits users to transact -- but in return the bank demands trust, it incurs expense to maintain a centralised server and staff, it uses a proprietary interface ... and it may speculate using your money and/or display rent-seeking behaviour. A blockchain ledger is by design decentralised, inexpensive, open, and it won't just bet your tokens on risky derivatives (unless you ask). The FA1.2 standard is an open standard for ledger-keeping smart contracts on the Tezos blockchain. Several FA1.2 implementations already exist. Or do they? Is the standard sensible and complete? Are the implementations correct? And what are they implementations \emph{of}? The FA1.2 standard is written in English, a specification language favoured by wet human brains but notorious for its incompleteness and ambiguity when rendered into dry and unforgiving code. In this paper we report on a formalisation of the FA1.2 standard as a Coq specification, and on a formal verification of three FA1.2-compliant smart contracts with respect to that specification. Errors were found and ambiguities were resolved; but also, there now exists a \emph{mathematically precise} and battle-tested specification of the FA1.2 ledger standard. We will describe FA1.2 itself, outline the structure of the Coq theories -- which in itself captures some non-trivial and novel design decisions of the development -- and review the detailed verification of the implementations.

cs.LO

Karl Marx and the Blockchain

Blockchain is often presented as a technological development; however, clearly it is not only that: the `Blockchain buzz' exists in the context of current social and political developments. In this essay, we analyse blockchain technology and its social and political context from a perspective of Marxist economic theory. Since arguably the last great inflection point in society and technology was analysed by Marx in terms of labour and capital and since we seem to be experiencing a shift in the balance between these forces today, it makes sense to revisit the Marxist ideas and apply them to the current situation, to see how well they still apply and if necessary to update them for current events.

cs.CY

Denotation of syntax and metaprogramming in contextual modal type theory (CMTT)

The modal logic S4 can be used via a Curry-Howard style correspondence to obtain a lambda-calculus. Modal (boxed) types are intuitively interpreted as `closed syntax of the calculus'. This lambda-calculus is called modal type theory --- this is the basic case of a more general contextual modal type theory, or CMTT. CMTT has never been given a denotational semantics in which modal types are given denotation as closed syntax. We show how this can indeed be done, with a twist. We also use the denotation to prove some properties of the system.

cs.LO

From nominal sets binding to functions and lambda-abstraction: connecting the logic of permutation models with the logic of functions

Permissive-Nominal Logic (PNL) extends first-order predicate logic with term-formers that can bind names in their arguments. It takes a semantics in (permissive-)nominal sets. In PNL, the forall-quantifier or lambda-binder are just term-formers satisfying axioms, and their denotation is functions on nominal atoms-abstraction. Then we have higher-order logic (HOL) and its models in ordinary (i.e. Zermelo-Fraenkel) sets; the denotation of forall or lambda is functions on full or partial function spaces. This raises the following question: how are these two models of binding connected? What translation is possible between PNL and HOL, and between nominal sets and functions? We exhibit a translation of PNL into HOL, and from models of PNL to certain models of HOL. It is natural, but also partial: we translate a restricted subsystem of full PNL to HOL. The extra part which does not translate is the symmetry properties of nominal sets with respect to permutations. To use a little nominal jargon: we can translate names and binding, but not their nominal equivariance properties. This seems reasonable since HOL---and ordinary sets---are not equivariant. Thus viewed through this translation, PNL and HOL and their models do different things, but they enjoy non-trivial and rich subsystems which are isomorphic.

cs.LO