Simplifying Access to Blockchain Data Across Multiple Networks

Table of Links

Abstract and 1 Introduction

2 Background and Related Work and 2.1 From Bitcoin to Blockchains

2.2 Open and Permissionless Blockchains

2.3 Interoperability Between Blockchains

3 Cross-Chain Query Language and 3.1 Integrated Data Model

3.2 Grammar and Query Processing Architecture

4 Evaluation of Implementation Feasibility and 4.1 Software and Hardware Configuration

4.2 Query Processing

4.3 Discussion

5 Conclusion and Outlook, Acknowledgment, and References

4.3 Discussion

The prototype provides uniform data access to OPB, such as the retrieval of asset and data transfers across multiple blockchains. As per the defined grammar, data access is standardized, facilitating statements that involve one or more blockchains. For meaningful utilization of blockchain properties, it is essential to operate blockchain nodes locally, which can involve significant time and cost for initial synchronizations.

The architecture of the data model follows a data integration approach, where data conforming to well-known OPB can be stored by populating pertinent classes. In contrast, merely relying on multiple individual data models would fail to address the issue at hand.

Due to the generic and unifying approach, the prototype in its current form has limited support for advanced concepts specific to individual OPB. For instance, calculating transaction fees involving additional utility tokens falls outside the scope of this model. Functionality-wise, limitations concern the processing of queries with filters. Currently, the prototype is constrained to the sequential application of filters with equality comparisons. In addition, the processing is limited to the classes and attributes present in the data model. In future development, further blockchain-specific processing logic and attributes could be added to the architecture and the data model, respectively. At this point, the prototype demonstrates the general feasibility of a domain-specific language that supports multiple blockchains. Regarding atomicity, it is supported on a technical level for query transactions within the data model, however, the API-based access approach does not allow for atomicity guarantees that depend on the software node implementations of different blockchains. Oftentimes, APIs do not provide specific atomicity or strong consistency guarantees and instead rely on eventual consistency. For this reason, access through APIs limits the possibility of strong guarantees for the prototype.

5 Conclusion and Outlook

This paper presents a cross-chain query language grammar, data model, and processing architecture aimed at facilitating uniform data access across multiple blockchains. The approach enables homogeneous data access, query standardization, addressing multiple blockchains within individual queries, and local validation of blockchain data. These facets were only partially covered in previous research.

The feasibility of implementing the language with its processing architecture has been positively evaluated using a prototype, despite the functional limitations mentioned in the previous discussion. Using the proposed approach of application-level interoperability, software can leverage multiple blockchains to establish a unified view on data while relying on verifiable transactions that are part of an open and permissionless infrastructure.

In future research, these concepts can serve as a basis for addressing further integration aspects among blockchains, e.g. in terms of augmenting data storage distributed on multiple blockchains, and provide advanced integration methods towards enabling blockchains as decentralized application platforms.

Acknowledgment

This work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation project DomainSpecific Conceptual Modeling for Distributed Ledger Technologies [196889].

References

1. Antonopoulos, A.M., Wood, G.: Mastering Ethereum: Building Smart Contracts and DApps. O’Reilly Media (2019)

   
   

2. Bartoletti, M., Lande, S., Pompianu, L., Bracciali, A.: A general framework for blockchain analytics. In: 1st Workshop on Scalable and Resilient Infrastructures for Distributed Ledgers. pp. 1–6. SERIAL ’17, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3152824.3152831

   
   

3. Belchior, R., Vasconcelos, A., Guerreiro, S., Correia, M.: A Survey on Blockchain Interoperability: Past, Present, and Future Trends. arXiv:2005.14282 [cs] (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14282

   
   

4. Belotti, M., Bozic, N., Pujolle, G., Secci, S.: A Vademecum on Blockchain Technologies: When, Which, and How. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 21(4), 3796–3838 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2019.2928178

   
   

5. Bragagnolo, S., Rocha, H., Denker, M., Ducasse, S.: Ethereum query language. In: 1st International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3194113.3194114

   
   

6. Buterin, V.: Ethereum: A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform. Tech. rep. (2014), https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper

   
   

7. Camozzi, G., Härer, F., Fill, H.G.: Multidimensional Analysis of Blockchain Data Using an ETL-based Approach. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik 2022 Proceedings (2022)

   
   

8. Ethereum: Proof-of-stake (PoS) (2022), https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/

   
   

9. Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Leonardos, N.: The Bitcoin Backbone Protocol: Analysis and Applications. In: EUROCRYPT 2015. Springer (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6

   
   

10. Gilad, Y., Hemo, R., Micali, S., Vlachos, G., Zeldovich, N.: Algorand: Scaling Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies. In: 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. SOSP ’17, ACM (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3132747.3132757

    
    

11. Härer, F., Fill, H.G.: Decentralized attestation and distribution of information using blockchains and multi-protocol storage. IEEE Access 10, 18035–18054 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3150356

    
    

12. Hayward, A.: Solana Blames ‘Denial of Service Attack’ for Last Week’s Downtime (2021), <https://decrypt.co/81375/ solana-blames-denial-of-service-attack-for-last-weeks-downtime>

    
    

13. Herlihy, M.: Atomic Cross-Chain Swaps. In: 2018 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. pp. 245–254. ACM, Egham United Kingdom (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3212734.3212736

    
    

14. Härer, F.: Towards interoperability of open and permissionless blockchains: A crosschain query language. In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE). pp. 190–197 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEBE55470.2022.00041

    
    

15. Kiayias, A., Russell, A., David, B., Oliynykov, R.: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol. Tech. Rep. 889 (2016), https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889

    
    

16. Ladleif, J., Weske, M.: A Unifying Model of Legal Smart Contracts. In: Conceptual Modeling. pp. 323–337. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33223-5_27

    
    

17. Liiv, I.: Exploration with Structured Query Language. In: Data Science Techniques for Cryptocurrency Blockchains. Behaviormetrics: Quantitative Approaches to Human Behavior, Springer (2021), http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2418-6_2

    
    

18. Narayanan, A., Clark, J.: Bitcoin’s academic pedigree. Communications of the ACM 60(12), 36–45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3132259

    
    

19. Olivé, A.: The Conceptual Schema of Ethereum. In: Dobbie, G., Frank, U., Kappel, G., Liddle, S.W., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. pp. 418– 428. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020). <https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-62522-1_31>

    
    

20. Pillai, B., Biswas, K., Muthukkumarasamy, V.: Cross-chain interoperability among blockchain-based systems using transactions. The Knowledge Engineering Review 35 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888920000314

    
    

21. Rocket, T., Yin, M., Sekniqi, K., van Renesse, R., Sirer, E.G.: Scalable and Probabilistic Leaderless BFT Consensus through Metastability. arXiv:1906.08936 [cs] (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.0893

    
    

22. S. Nakamoto: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Tech. rep. (2008), https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    
    

23. S. Nakamoto: Bitcoin - A software-based online payment system (2009), https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/news/

    
    

24. Saad, M., Spaulding, J., Njilla, L., Kamhoua, C., Shetty, S., Nyang, D., Mohaisen, D.: Exploring the Attack Surface of Blockchain: A Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 22(3) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2020.2975999

    
    

25. Shadab, N., Houshmand, F., Lesani, M.: Cross-chain Transactions. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC48266.2020.9169477

    
    

26. Shrivas, M.K., Dean, T.Y., Brunda, S.S.: The Disruptive Blockchain Security Threats and Threat Categorization. In: 2020 First International Conference on Power, Control and Computing Technologies (ICPC2T). IEEE, Raipur, India (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC2T48082.2020.9071475

    
    

27. Weber, I., Staples, M.: Programmable money: Next-generation conditional payments using blockchain. In: 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science - CLOSER,. pp. 7–14. INSTICC, SciTePress (2021). https://doi.org/10.5220/0010535800070014

    
    

28. Wood, G.: Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Tech.rep., Ethereum (2022), https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf

    
    

29. Yakovenko, A.: Solana: A new architecture for a high performance blockchain v0.8.14. Tech. rep., Solana (2018), https://github.com/solana-labs/whitepaper/blob/master/solana-whitepaper-en.pdf

30. Zakhary, V., Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: Atomic commitment across blockchains. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13(9), 1319–1331 (2020). https://doi.org/10.14778/3397230.3397231