-
The MEV Saga: Can Regulation Illuminate the Dark Forest?
Authors:
Simona Ramos,
Joshua Ellul
Abstract:
In this article, we develop an interdisciplinary analysis of MEV which desires to merge the gap that exists between technical and legal research supporting policymakers in their regulatory decisions concerning blockchains, DeFi and associated risks. Consequently, this article is intended for both technical and legal audiences, and while we abstain from a detailed legal analysis, we aim to open a p…
▽ More
In this article, we develop an interdisciplinary analysis of MEV which desires to merge the gap that exists between technical and legal research supporting policymakers in their regulatory decisions concerning blockchains, DeFi and associated risks. Consequently, this article is intended for both technical and legal audiences, and while we abstain from a detailed legal analysis, we aim to open a policy discussion regarding decentralized governance design at the block building layer as the place where MEV occurs. Maximal Extractable Value or MEV has been one of the major concerns in blockchain designs as it creates a centralizing force which ultimately affects user transactions. In this article, we dive into the technicality behind MEV, where we explain the concept behind the novel Proposal Builder Separation design as an effort by Flashbots to increase decentralization through modularity. We underline potential vulnerability factors under the PBS design, which open space for MEV extracting adversarial strategies by inside participants. We discuss the shift of trust from validators to builders in PoS blockchains such as Ethereum, acknowledging the impact that the later ones may have on users' transactions (in terms of front running) and censorship resistance (in terms of transaction inclusion). We recognize that under PBS, centralized (dominant) entities such as builders could potentially harm users by extracting MEV via front running strategies. Finally, we suggest adequate design and policy measures which could potentially mitigate these negative effects while protecting blockchain users.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Active External Calls for Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies: Debunking cited inability of Blockchain and DLT to make external calls
Authors:
Joshua Ellul,
Gordon J Pace
Abstract:
Blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies have enabled peer-to-peer networks to maintain ledgers with an immutable history and guaranteed computation, all carried out without the need of trusted parties. In practice, few applications of blockchain are closed i.e. do not interact with the world outside the blockchain, and various techniques have been proposed and used to handle such inte…
▽ More
Blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies have enabled peer-to-peer networks to maintain ledgers with an immutable history and guaranteed computation, all carried out without the need of trusted parties. In practice, few applications of blockchain are closed i.e. do not interact with the world outside the blockchain, and various techniques have been proposed and used to handle such interaction. One problem is that it is widely accepted that, due to the decentralised nature of blockchain networks and constraints to ensure trust and determinism, such communication can only flow into the blockchain, and that blockchain systems cannot initiate and execute calls to external systems or services. In this paper we show that this misconception is preconceived by building on our previously presented solution to demonstrate that such calls can be directly initiated from the blockchain itself in a feasible and efficient manner.
△ Less
Submitted 10 January, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Towards External Calls for Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology
Authors:
Joshua Ellul,
Gordon J. Pace
Abstract:
It is widely accepted that blockchain systems cannot execute calls to external systems or services due to each node having to reach a deterministic state. However, in this paper we show that this belief is preconceived by demonstrating a method that enables blockchain and distributed ledger technologies to perform calls to external systems initiated from the blockchain/DLT itself.
It is widely accepted that blockchain systems cannot execute calls to external systems or services due to each node having to reach a deterministic state. However, in this paper we show that this belief is preconceived by demonstrating a method that enables blockchain and distributed ledger technologies to perform calls to external systems initiated from the blockchain/DLT itself.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2021; v1 submitted 13 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
A Pragmatic Approach to Regulating Artificial Intelligence: A Technology Regulator's Perspective
Authors:
Joshua Ellul,
Stephen McCarthy,
Trevor Sammut,
Juanita Brockdorff,
Matthew Scerri,
Gordon J. Pace
Abstract:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the regulation thereof is a topic that is increasingly being discussed within various fora. Various proposals have been made in literature for defining regulatory bodies and/or related regulation. In this paper, we present a pragmatic approach for providing a technology assurance regulatory framework. To the best knowledge of the authors this work presents the firs…
▽ More
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the regulation thereof is a topic that is increasingly being discussed within various fora. Various proposals have been made in literature for defining regulatory bodies and/or related regulation. In this paper, we present a pragmatic approach for providing a technology assurance regulatory framework. To the best knowledge of the authors this work presents the first national AI technology assurance legal and regulatory framework that has been implemented by a national authority empowered through law to do so. In aim of both providing assurances where required and not stifling innovation yet supporting it, herein it is proposed that such regulation should not be mandated for all AI-based systems and that rather it should primarily provide a voluntary framework and only be mandated in sectors and activities where required and as deemed necessary by other authorities for regulated and critical areas.
△ Less
Submitted 15 April, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
EtherClue: Digital investigation of attacks on Ethereum smart contracts
Authors:
Simon Joseph Aquilina,
Fran Casino,
Mark Vella,
Joshua Ellul,
Constantinos Patsakis
Abstract:
Programming errors in Ethereum smart contracts can result in catastrophic financial losses from stolen cryptocurrency. While vulnerability detectors can prevent vulnerable contracts from being deployed, this does not mean that such contracts will not be deployed. Once a vulnerable contract is instantiated on the blockchain and becomes the target of attacks, the identification of exploit transactio…
▽ More
Programming errors in Ethereum smart contracts can result in catastrophic financial losses from stolen cryptocurrency. While vulnerability detectors can prevent vulnerable contracts from being deployed, this does not mean that such contracts will not be deployed. Once a vulnerable contract is instantiated on the blockchain and becomes the target of attacks, the identification of exploit transactions becomes indispensable in assessing whether it has been actually exploited and identifying which malicious or subverted accounts were involved.
In this work, we study the problem of post-factum investigation of Ethereum attacks using Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) specially crafted for use in the blockchain. IoC definitions need to capture the side-effects of successful exploitation in the context of the Ethereum blockchain. Therefore, we define a model for smart contract execution, comprising multiple abstraction levels that mirror the multiple views of code execution on a blockchain. Subsequently, we compare IoCs defined across the different levels in terms of their effectiveness and practicality through EtherClue, a prototype tool for investigating Ethereum security incidents. Our results illustrate that coarse-grained IoCs defined over blocks of transactions can detect exploit transactions with less computation; however, they are contract-specific and suffer from false negatives. On the other hand, fine-grained IoCs defined over virtual machine instructions can avoid these pitfalls at the expense of increased computation which are nevertheless applicable for practical use.
△ Less
Submitted 2 September, 2021; v1 submitted 12 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
Blockchain and the Common Good Reimagined
Authors:
Joshua Ellul,
Gordon Pace
Abstract:
Blockchain, Smart Contracts and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) are being touted to revolutionise digital services - through decentralisation. Cryptocurrencies, self-sovereign identities, decentralised certificate registries, and transparent voting systems are but a few applications which promise to empower endusers and provide assurances that neither data nor the associated computational logi…
▽ More
Blockchain, Smart Contracts and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) are being touted to revolutionise digital services - through decentralisation. Cryptocurrencies, self-sovereign identities, decentralised certificate registries, and transparent voting systems are but a few applications which promise to empower endusers and provide assurances that neither data nor the associated computational logic have been tampered with.
Decentralisation, disintermediation, transparency, verifiability, auditability, openness, inclusion, tamper-proof, immutability are just some of the buzz words that continue to be swung around in the promotion of the benefits brought about by Blockchain-based systems to the users. The rhetoric used creates parallels between the features brought about through blockchains and values that many try to uphold, for example honesty, openness, transparency, teamwork and unchanging truth.
In this paper a number of blockchain applications aimed at supporting initiatives for common good are highlighted. This is followed by a discussion on technology de/centralisation and a thought experiment used to raise questions regarding the use of decentralised technology in terms of social implications.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
