Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2109.09451

Money grows on (proof-)trees: the formal FA1.2 ledger standard

Abstract

Once you have invented digital money, you may need a ledger to track who owns what -- and an interface to that ledger so that users of your money can transact. On the Tezos blockchain this implies: a smart contract (distributed program), storing in its state a ledger to map owner addresses to token quantities, and standardised entrypoints to transact on accounts. A bank does a similar job -- it maps account numbers to account quantities and permits users to transact -- but in return the bank demands trust, it incurs expense to maintain a centralised server and staff, it uses a proprietary interface ... and it may speculate using your money and/or display rent-seeking behaviour. A blockchain ledger is by design decentralised, inexpensive, open, and it won't just bet your tokens on risky derivatives (unless you ask). The FA1.2 standard is an open standard for ledger-keeping smart contracts on the Tezos blockchain. Several FA1.2 implementations already exist. Or do they? Is the standard sensible and complete? Are the implementations correct? And what are they implementations \emph{of}? The FA1.2 standard is written in English, a specification language favoured by wet human brains but notorious for its incompleteness and ambiguity when rendered into dry and unforgiving code. In this paper we report on a formalisation of the FA1.2 standard as a Coq specification, and on a formal verification of three FA1.2-compliant smart contracts with respect to that specification. Errors were found and ambiguities were resolved; but also, there now exists a \emph{mathematically precise} and battle-tested specification of the FA1.2 ledger standard. We will describe FA1.2 itself, outline the structure of the Coq theories -- which in itself captures some non-trivial and novel design decisions of the development -- and review the detailed verification of the implementations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Murdoch Gabbay, Arvid Jakobsson, Kristina Sojakova. 2021-12-01. Money grows on (proof-)trees: the formal FA1.2 ledger standard. https://doi.org/10.4230/oasics.fmbc.2021.2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Deciding Predicate Logical Theories of Real-Valued Functions

The notion of a real-valued function is central to mathematics, computer science, and many other scientific fields. Despite this importance, there are hardly any positive results on decision procedures for predicate logical theories that reason about real-valued functions. This paper defines a first-order predicate language for reasoning about multi-dimensional smooth real-valued functions and their derivatives, and demonstrates that - despite the obvious undecidability barriers - certain positive decidability results for such a language are indeed possible.

cs.LO

Structural Liveness of Conservative Petri Nets

We show that the EXPSPACE-hardness result for structural liveness of Petri nets [Jancar and Purser, 2019] holds even for a simple subclass of conservative nets. As our main result, we prove that for structurally live conservative nets, the values of the minimal live markings are at most doubly exponential in the size of the net. This implies the EXPSPACE-completeness of structural liveness for conservative Petri nets. The result also applies to structurally bounded Petri nets, whereas the complexity of the general case remains open. As a proof ingredient of independent interest, we present an extension of known results on the bounds of minimal integer solutions to Boolean combinations of linear equalities, inequalities, and divisibility constraints.

cs.LO

Verifying Numerical Methods with Isabelle/HOL

Modern machine learning pipelines and ODE solvers are built on numerical algorithms. Reliable numerical methods are thus a prerequisite for trustworthy machine learning and cyber-physical systems. We evaluate a framework designed for verifying imperative programs and the Isabelle proof assistant as tools for proving the total correctness of four numerical algorithms: the bisection method, the fixed-point method, the perceptron, and the gradient descent algorithm. Our verifications required subtle extensions and generalisations to Isabelle's version of Taylor's theorem and higher-order derivatives. Finally, we reflect on the framework's automation, friendly syntax, and on further requirements to turn it into a verification tool for numerical methods.

cs.LO