Papers › Iniva: Inclusive and Incentive-compatible Vote Aggregation
Iniva: Inclusive and Incentive-compatible Vote Aggregation
Arian Baloochestani, Hanish Gogada, Leander Jehl, Hein Meling
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Many blockchain platforms use committee-based consensus for scalability, finality, and security. In this consensus scheme, a committee decides which blocks get appended to the chain, typically through several voting phases. Platforms typically leverage the committee members' recorded votes to reward, punish, or detect failures. A common approach is to let the block proposer decide which votes to include, opening the door to possible attacks. For example, a malicious proposer can omit votes from targeted committee members, resulting in lost profits and, ultimately, their departure from the system. This paper presents Iniva, an inclusive and incentive-compatible vote aggregation scheme that prevents such vote omission attacks. Iniva relies on a tree overlay with carefully selected fallback paths, making it robust against process failures without needing reconfiguration or additional redundancy. Our analysis shows that Iniva significantly reduces the chance to omit individual votes while ensuring that omitting many votes incurs a significant cost. In addition, our experimental results show that Iniva enjoys robustness, scalability, and reasonable throughput.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections