journal article·2025-12-23Open access

An Optimized Gasper Consensus Protocol Resistant to Adversarial Bias Attacks

Xi Lin, Junfeng Tian

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 1

Abstract

Blockchain consensus mechanisms are fundamental to the security and decentralization of distributed ledgers. In Proof-of-Stake (PoS) systems, which are lauded for their energy efficiency, the fair and unpredictable selection of block proposers is paramount and relies heavily on secure random number generation. The RANDAO random number generation mechanism in the Gasper protocol is susceptible to hash collision attack, which can introduce adversarial bias in the block proposer selection process. From the perspective of resisting adversarial bias attacks, this paper examines the optimization of the Gasper consensus protocol, focusing on security issues such as vulnerabilities to hash collisions in RANDAO and high latency in asynchronous network environments. By analyzing the spatial–temporal distribution of historical block hashes, we propose a dual-round random number verification mechanism that enhances reliability through multiple validation models. We develop a dynamic game-theoretic model under incomplete information to analyze node strategy selection and interaction dynamics. Our experimental results demonstrate that the improved protocol (RABA-Gasper) offers superior resistance to attacks, fairness, and efficiency compared to conventional protocols. RABA-Gasper outperforms conventional ones, achieving a 6.8% attack success rate (vs. 32.7% for RANDAO and 18.2% for Two Look-Back) with 94.3% hash collision detection, a proposer Gini coefficient below 0.23, 2.3x higher throughput retention than RANDAO in asynchronous networks, and a slightly increased random number generation latency of 125 ms. Supported by a game-theoretic model, it guarantees security when honest nodes account for ≥2/3 of the total.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Blockchain Technology Applications and Security · Distributed systems and fault tolerance · Software-Defined Networks and 5G

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Cyber Security and Computer, Hebei University, Baoding 071000, China

Hebei Key Laboratory of High Confidence Information Systems, Hebei University, Baoding 071000, China

Funding

Funds of the Central Government for Local Science and 752 Technology Development

References (32)

Show source-provided references
1. Blockchain without waste: Proof-of-stake10.1093/rfs/hhaa075 ↗
2. A stochastic analysis of the Gasper protocol10.1016/j.comcom.2025.108123 ↗
3. Alturki, M.A., and Roşu, G. (2019, January 7–11). Statistical model checking of RANDAO’s resilience to pre-computed reveal strategies. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Formal Methods, Porto, Portugal.10.1007/978-3-030-54994-7_25 ↗
4. Daian, P., Pass, R., and Shi, E. (2019, January 18–22). Snow white: Robustly reconfigurable consensus and applications to provably secure proof of stake. Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Frigate Bay, St. Kitts and Nevis.10.1007/978-3-030-32101-7_2 ↗
5. Updated delegated proof of stake and Nash equilibrium: A mining pool game model for blockchain network10.1002/cpe.8224 ↗
6. Komatovic, J., Lewis-Pye, A., Neu, J., Roughgarden, T., and Tas, E.N. (2025). From Permissioned to Proof-of-Stake Consensus. arXiv.
7. Economics of ethereum10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2024.102718 ↗
8. Tapolcai, J., Ladóczki, B., and Nagy, Á. (2025, April 27). Slot a la carte: Centralization Issues in Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake Protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/219.
9. Buterin, V., Hernandez, D., Kamphefner, T., Pham, K., Qiao, Z., Ryan, D., Sin, J., Wang, Y., and Zhang, Y.X. (2020). Combining ghost and casper. arXiv.
10. Son, D.H., Quynh, T.T.T., and Minh, L.Q. (2024). RANDAO-based RNG: Last Revealer Attacks in Ethereum 2.0 Randomness and a Potential Solution. arXiv.
11. Denial-of-service vulnerability of hash-based transaction sharding: Attack and countermeasure
12. On identity, transaction, and smart contract privacy on permissioned and permissionless blockchain: A comprehensive survey10.1145/3676164 ↗
13. Alturki, M.A., Chen, J., Luchangco, V., Moore, B., Palmskog, K., Peña, L., and Roşu, G. (2019, January 7–11). Towards a verified model of the algorand consensus protocol in coq. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Formal Methods, Porto, Portugal.10.1007/978-3-030-54994-7_27 ↗
14. Asgaonkar, A., D’Amato, F., Saltini, R., Zanolini, L., and Zhang, C. (2024). A Fast Confirmation Rule for the Ethereum Consensus Protocol. arXiv.
15. Insights on the Theory of Robust Games: Insights on the Theory of Robust Games: GP Crespi et al10.1007/s10614-023-10486-0 ↗
16. Consensus mechanism selection in Web 3.0 blockchain platforms: Proof of Work vs. Proof of Stake10.1016/j.tre.2025.104173 ↗
17. Pititto, G. (2022). The Gasper Protocol: A Proof of Stake Era for Ethereum. [Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Torino].
18. Improved fault-tolerant consensus based on the PBFT algorithm10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3153701 ↗
19. A modified version of Moran’s I10.1186/1476-072X-9-33 ↗
20. Bhatia, S., Gedal, S., Lee, H.J.G., Chopra, R., Roman, D., and Chakroborty, S. (2024). Crypto Market Analysis & Real-Estate Business Protocol Proposal|Application of Ethereum Blockchain. arXiv.
21. Shumway, R.H., and Stoffer, D.S. (2017). ARIMA models. Time Series Analysis and Its Applications: With R Examples, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-52452-8 ↗
22. Gurney, K. (2018). An Introduction to Neural Networks, CRC Press.10.1201/9781315273570 ↗
23. O’shea, K., and Nash, R. (2015). An introduction to convolutional neural networks. arXiv.
24. A review of recurrent neural networks: LSTM cells and network architectures10.1162/neco_a_01199 ↗
26. Gaži, P., Kiayias, A., and Russell, A. (2018, January 20–22). Stake-bleeding attacks on proof-of-stake blockchains. Proceedings of the 2018 Crypto Valley Conference on Blockchain Technology (CVCBT), Zug, Switzerland.10.1109/CVCBT.2018.00015 ↗
27. Kreps, D.M. (2018). Nash equilibrium. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Springer.10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_963 ↗
28. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger
29. De Oliveira, R.L.S., Schweitzer, C.M., Shinoda, A.A., and Prete, L.R. (2014, January 4–6). Using mininet for emulation and prototyping software-defined networks. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Colombian Conference on Communications and Computing (COLCOM), Bogota, Colombia.10.1109/ColComCon.2014.6860404 ↗
30. Pisner, D.A., and Schnyer, D.M. (2020). Support vector machine. Machine Learning, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-815739-8.00006-7 ↗
31. Parmar, A., Katariya, R., and Patel, V. (2018, January 20–22). A review on random forest: An ensemble classifier. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Data Communication Technologies and Internet of Things, Singapore.10.1007/978-3-030-03146-6_86 ↗
32. Meyes, R., Lu, M., De Puiseau, C.W., and Meisen, T. (2019). Ablation studies in artificial neural networks. arXiv.