The study Whiteblock: EOS is not the blockchain


The study Whiteblock: EOS is not the blockchain

Involved in testing of the block chain, the company claims that the EOS Protocol, assessing $5 billion, is not bloccano as such. This writes TheNextWeb.

In their experiment, a firm Whiteblock came to the conclusion that the token EOS and the associated market RAM are, in essence, the service of cloud computing based on a completely centralized structure. At the same time, they do not possess some fundamental characteristics of the block chain, such as immutability.

The testing was ordered blockchain startup ConsenSys involved in the development of the Ethereum ecosystem.

“We conducted a study using practical tests under controlled laboratory conditions, which provides detailed and objective model of the development, performance and economy EOS”, — stated in the articles of the company.

EOS differs from Ethereum and bitcoin on a number of characteristics, most notable of which seems to be the selection of validators of transactions. Unlike the block chain on the basis of the mechanism of consensus Proof-of-Work, where anyone can allocate their resources to maintain network performance, EOS chooses the manufacturers of the blocks using a complex voting process, which is part of the mechanism of Delegated Proof-of-Stake used in it. During the election of the producers of blocks each token EOS corresponds to one voice, that is, those who owns more tokens to have more control over the network.

For the implementation of the experiment Whiteblock has created its own version of the EOS system, which, according to his statement, were as close as possible to the original.

“It uses the same software. Manufacturers of blocks in the system Whiteblock perform the same function as the manufacturers of the blocks in the core network,” said technical Director Whiteblock Zach Cole.
“We provide the nodes in a controlled test environment configurable parameters of the network between these nodes to simulate the performance in real conditions, and automate their processes and actions to monitor their behavior and measure performance in a deterministic manner”.

Team Whiteblock began testing its own copy of the blockchain EOS in September. The tests were held in isolated conditions and lasted 2 months.

The firm describes EOS as a network, giving the promise of providing computing resources stored in the “black box”, where they can obtain users, and claims that it uses a centralized, filled with holes management model.

“EOS is not a blockchain and distributed homogenous control system database, the key difference being the lack of cryptographic validation of transactions,” says Whiteblock. “Manufacturers units EOS are highly centralized, and users can gain network access only through the mediation of producers units. Manufacturers of blocks is a single point of failure of the entire system.”

A significant part of the report is devoted to a proof that the Protocol EOS, there is no mechanism that would prevent the collusion of the blocks, which opens up opportunities for the organization of the cartel with the aim of disabling the entire system.

Thus, Whiteblock claims that the EOS contains a vulnerability at the level of consensus and does not use a Byzantine agreement Protocol, which may fall under the control of malicious conspirators.

“At the conceptual level in the network EOS you cannot implement a Protocol for Byzantine agreement. For this, the network must be protected from the formation of cartels, but the cartels are easily formed in the EOS, which negates any work in this direction.”

The researchers also draw attention to the fact that the primary threat to the integrity of the EOS system is its vulnerability to Sybil attacks, where a node can have multiple identifiers, which in turn allows you to fill the network is garbage data and conduct DDoS attacks.

“Actually, this is a major vulnerability of the system, since the fraudsters can essentially create malicious accounts much faster than manufacturers of blocks can reach consensus concerning the deletion of such accounts,” warns Whiteblock. “This factor serves as another confirmation of centralization that exists in the network the EOS, and the enormous powers possessed by the manufacturers.”

After that, the authors of the report are transferred to the allegation that the manufacturers of the blocks do not actually process transactions using any mechanism of consensus, but only confirmed them “mechanically”, without complete verification of their correctness.

Whiteblock test showed that the number of transactions that can process the blockchain EOS, in practice, seriously is not up to those values, which was originally called in marketing materials, and never exceed 250 transactions per second, even under ideal conditions, including zero latency and no packet loss.

Other testers in the past have engaged in the measurement of network bandwidth EOS. According to a widespread opinion, the limit for EOS currently stands at 4,000 transactions per second (TPS). In the white paper draft says, in the future the network can scale to millions of transactions per second.

“During the test in real-world conditions with a delay of a full cycle of 50 milliseconds and 0.01% of packets lost productivity fell below 50 TPS, that is closer to current indicators Ethereum”, the study says.

Bitcoin is currently able to handle up to 7 transactions per second, Ethereum is about 20.

But that’s not all. As Cole explains, EOS keeps all non-transactional data in the original table developed by the head of EOS Dan Larimer, called Chainbase. EOS when the network confirms the transaction, the manufacturers of the blocks just leave cross-references to the new data in the table, not making sure with their legitimacy with the help of cryptography, argues Whiteblock. In other words, to execute transactions EOS enough to manufacturers of updated data blocks Chainbase, with cryptographic verification component, which is present, for example in the Ethereum blockchain, in this case omitted.

“All these actions are carried out in an environment characterized by a lack of cryptographic validation of contracts and transactions,” — the researchers said.
“EOS at a fundamental level is all the same centralized architecture of cloud computing [client/server] not having the fundamental components of the blockchain or peer-to-peer networks”.

Validation of transactions with checks in the special table has its consequences. It’s not only unusual for the cryptocurrency, but also allows developers to conduct an unlimited number of “undos” that is, manufacturers of blocks can reverse transactions that happened in the EOS system more than once.

“The ability to draw a story (or other valuable data) is in direct conflict with the basic definition of the blockchain, which is characterized by the immutability of data,” concludes Cole.

TheNextWeb has decided to hear back and contacted the producers of the EOS units, most of which refused comment on the situation.

The developer of decentralized applications on the ecosystem, EOS called the description of the validation process transactions Whiteblock “delusional”. He argues that Chainbase is only a method of storing data in real time. Manufacturers of blocks, in turn, confirm the transaction using cryptography, and then record the confirmed transactions in the blockchain. Chainbase in this case is a method of resource optimization the EOS that is not consistent with the conclusion of the Whiteblock.

As noted above, the study was commissioned by startup ConsenSys – one of the major players of the Ethereum ecosystem, which is a direct competitor to the EOS. On the other hand, in the history and structure of the EOS to date, really had a lot of ambiguous moments. For those who doubt the objectivity of the approach Whiteblock, the company promises to conduct a test of the blockchain in real time.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.