You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Applied Sciences
  • Correction
  • Open Access

15 September 2022

Correction: Jang, J.; Lee, H.-N. Profitable Double-Spending Attacks. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8477

and
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST), 123 Cheomdangwagi-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju 61005, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Text Correction

1.
There was an error in the original publication [1]: “In a recentralized network, since most computing resources are concentrated on a small number of pools, it could be not difficult for them to conspire to alter the block content for their own benefits, if not aiming to double-spend, more probable.”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Section 1, Introduction, in paragraph 4 on line 7:
“In a recentralized network, since most computing resources are concentrated on a small number of pools, it could be not difficult for them to conspire to alter the block content for their own benefits, if aiming to double-spend. ”
2.
There was an error in the original publication: “Definition 2. For a given cut-time t c u t + , the success of DS attack is declared if and only if there exists a DSA time T D S A 0 , t c u t at which G 1 and G 2 in Definition 1 has been achieved.”
A correction has been made to Definition 2:
“Definition 2. For a given cut-time t c u t + , the success of DS attack is declared if, and only if, there exists a DSA time T D S A 0 , t c u t  atwhich G 1 and G 2 inDefinition1havebeenachieved.”
3.
There was an error in the original publication: “The sets D j 1 for each j are mutually exclusive as each of them represents the first satisfaction of the block confirmation condition exactly at the j -th state.”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Section 2, The Attack Model, Section 2.3, DS Attack Achieving Time, in the paragraph 5 on line 1:
“The sets D j 1 for all j are mutually exclusive as each of them represents the first satisfaction of the block confirmation condition exactly at the j -th state.”
4.
There was an error in the original publication: “From Equation (13), the PDF of T D S A requires the probabilities of two random events; one is the state progression time T i in Equation (5); and the other is the event that a given state index i satisfies ω D j 1 D i , j 2 .”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Section 3, The Attack Probabilities, in the paragraph 2 on line 1:
“From Equation (13), the PDF of T D S A requires the probabilities of two random events: one is the state progression time T i in Equation (5); and the other is the event that a given state index i satisfies ω D j 1 D i , j 2 .”
5.
There was an error in the original publication: “By taking infinite summations of  p D S A , j in Lemma 1 for all indices i , we can compute the probability P D S A that a DS attack will ever achieve the necessary conditions in Definition 1.”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Section 3, The Attack Probabilities, in the paragraph 4 on line 1:
“By taking infinite summations of p D S A , i in Lemma 1 for all indices i , we can compute the probability D S A that a DS attack will ever achieve the necessary conditions in Definition 1.”
6.
There was an error in the original publication: “If there does not exist such an index i , with the probability of 1 P D S A , then T D S A = .”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Section 3, The Attack Probabilities, in the paragraph 5 on line 2:
“If there does not exist such an index i , with the probability of 1 D S A , T D S A = . ”
7.
There was an error to Equation (19) in the original publication:
f T D S A t = i = 2 N B C + 1 p D S A , i f T i t + 1 P D S A δ t ,
A correction has been made to Equation (19):
f T D S A t = i = 2 N B C + 1 p D S A , i f T i t + 1 D S A δ t ,
8.
There was an error in the original publication: “The previous probabilistic analyses in [1,6] show that the success of DS attacks is not guaranteed when p A < 0.5 .”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Section 4, Profitable DS Attacks, in the paragraph 1 on line 1:
“The previous probabilistic analyses in [1,6] have shown that the success of DS attacks is not guaranteed when p A < 0.5 .”
9.
There was an error in the original publication: “With regards to P , if an attack succeeds, the revenue comes from C , as it is double-spent, and R for the number of blocks minded during the time duration T A S , i.e., R λ A , T A S .”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Section 4, Profitable DS Attacks, in the paragraph 4 on line 1:
”With regards to P , if an attack succeeds, the revenue comes from C , as it is double-spent, added to R for the number of blocks mined during the time duration T A S , i.e., R λ A , T A S .”
10.
There was an error to Equation (35) in the original publication:
C Req . = = E X P A S E R λ A , T A S .
A correction has been made to Equation (35):
C Req . = E X P A S E R λ A , T A S .
11.
There was an error in the original publication: “Specifically, under, it is required for the honest chain to have added N B C blocks, while under their condition, it was the fraudulent chain to do so (see Section 3 of [16]).”
A correction has been made to a sentence located in Section 6, Related Works, in the paragraph 10 on line 6:
“Specifically, under our definition, it is required for the honest chain to have added N B C blocks, while under their condition it was fraudulent for the chain to do so (see Section 3 of [16]). ”
12.
There was an error in the original publication: “Note that D j 1 D i , j 2 = ϕ for i 2 N B C , since the minimum number of states for an attack success is 2 N B C + 1 ; N B C number of + 1 ’s state transitions for the block confirmation; and N B C + 1 number of 1 ’s state transitions for the success of PoW competition. Thus, p p D S A , i = 0 for i 2 N B C . □”
A correction has been made to the paragraph 2 of Appendix A, Proof of Lemma 1:
“Note that for D j 1 D i , j 2 = ϕ for i 2 N B C , since the minimum number of states for an attack success is 2 N B C + 1 : N B C number of +1’s state transitions for the block confirmation; and N B C + 1 number of −1’s state transitions for the success of PoW competition. Thus, p D S A , i = 0 for i 2 N B C .”
13.
There was an error in the original publication: “Finally, substituting Equation (A3) and Equation (A4) into Equation (A2) results in Equation (15).”
A correction has been made to the last paragraph of Appendix A, Proof of Lemma 1:
“Finally, substituting Equations (A3) and (A4) into Equation (A2) results in Equation (15). □ ”
14.
There was an error in the original publication: “From Equation (19) and Equation (26), when t c u t = , we obtain
E T A S = lim t c u t 0 t c u t t f T D S A ( t ) d t P A S t c u t = i = 2 N B C + 1 E T i p D S A , i P D S A = i = 2 N B C + 1 i λ T p D S A , i P D S A
where E T i = i λ T 1 1 [22].”
A correction has been made to this sentence located in Appendix B, Proof of Proposition 2, in the paragraph 1 on line 1:
“From Equations (19) and (26), when t c u t = , we obtain
E T A S = lim t c u t 0 t c u t t f T D S A ( t ) d t P A S t c u t = i = 2 N B C + 1 E T i p D S A , i P D S A = i = 2 N B C + 1 i λ T p D S A , i P D S A
where E T i = i λ T 1 [22]. ”
15.
There was an error in the original publication: “Attack success probability ( P A S )”
A correction has been made to the second item on the first column of Table 1:
“Attack success probability ( A S )”
16.
There was an error in the original publication: “Attack success probability ( P A S )”
A correction has been made to the second item on the first column of Table 2:
“Attack success probability ( A S )”
The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.

Reference

  1. Jang, J.; Lee, H.-N. Profitable Double-Spending Attacks. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.