Angel \”Java\” Lopez on Blog

May 30, 2016

Building A Blockchain (11)

Previous Post
Next Post

I refactored the blockchain implementation in my personal JavaScript/NodeJS project:

https://github.com/ajlopez/SimpleBlockchain

In the previous post I showed some tests I wrote using TDD (Test-Driven Development) workflow. Now, I want to show the current implementation, that is an evolution from the past week one.

The implementation is at:

https://github.com/ajlopez/SimpleBlockchain/blob/master/lib/blockchains.js

There is a JavaScript “class”, implemented as a function:

function Blockchain(block) {
    var self = this;
    var blocks = [block];
    var blockstore = stores.blockstore();
    blockstore.save(block);
    
    this.bestBlock = function () { return blocks[blocks.length - 1]; }

In my new implementation, I’m using a block store. This object was able to save a block, and retrieve a block by hash, or retrieve the blocks with same number. But now, I added the retrieve by parent hash: that is, given a block hash, blockstore can retrieve all its know children. Given such functionality, the blockchain implementation evolved to use that feature. In this way, I don’t need to have a tree of blocks: given a block, I can retrieve all the tree of its descendants, from the blockstore.

Notice that the state of the blockchain has a naive implementation: only a JavaScript array, where the index coincides with the block number, starting with genesis block having 0 as number. My plan is to refactor this implementation, to support thousands or millions of blocks, using a block store based on disk. But now, using this naive implementation, I could explore the behavior of the node application.

The exposed method to add a block is:

this.add = function (block) {
    if (blockstore.hasBlockHash(block.hash))
        return;
        
    blockstore.save(block);
    
    if (getUnknownAncestor(block) != null)
        return;
    
    tryAdd(block);
}

If the block is know, then it implies it was already processed, then return.

If not, the block is saved in the in-memory store, and the first unknown ancestor hash is calculated. Maybe, the store has not ALL the ancestor chain up to genesis block. In this case, I cannot process the block.

If the block has a chain of ancestor that connects it to the genesis block, then I try to add the block to the blockchain:

function tryAdd(block) {
    if (isBestBlockChild(block))
        blocks.push(block);
    else if (isBetterBestBlock(block))
        tryFork(block);
        
    tryChildren(block);
}

It it is a direct child of the best block, it is added to the block (remember, a naive implementation, a simple array). If not, but it is a better block (it has a higher number), a fork to the block is performed. In any case, the children of the block are processed: maybe, the new block is the missing link to new candidate chains based on previously known blocks that were disconnected from genesis until the arrival of the new block.

These are the predicates I wrote:

function isBestBlockChild(block) {
    var bblock = self.bestBlock();
    
    return bblock.hash === block.parentHash && bblock.number === block.number - 1;
}

function isBetterBestBlock(block) {
    var bblock = self.bestBlock();
    
    return bblock.number < block.number;
}

This is the process of the children:

function tryChildren(block) {
    var children = blockstore.getChildren(block.hash);

    for (var n in children)
        tryAdd(children[n]);
}

Note: again, it is a naive implementation, that implies a recursion using tryAdd, that calls tryChildren. I could refactor to avoid recursion, a pending task.

Given a block, this function calculates the upward chain to its first ancestor included in the current blockchain, and then change the blockchain to have that chain:

function tryFork(block) {
    var newbranch = [block];
    var parentHash = block.parentHash;
    
    while (parentHash && blockstore.hasBlockHash(parentHash)) {
        var parent = blockstore.getByHash(parentHash);
        
        if (parent.hash === blocks[parent.number].hash)
            return switchToFork(newbranch);
            
        newbranch.push(parent);
        
        parentHash = parent.parentHash;
    }
}

The find of the first unknow ancestor of a block:

function getUnknownAncestor(block) {
    var parentHash = block.parentHash;

    while (parentHash && blockstore.hasBlockHash(parentHash)) {
        var parent = blockstore.getByHash(parentHash);
        
        if (parent.hash === blocks[parent.number].hash)
            return null;
        
        parentHash = parent.parentHash;
    }
    
    return parentHash;
}

The change of the blockchain to a new fork:

function switchToFork(newbranch) {
    for (var n = newbranch.length; n-- > 0😉 {
        var block = newbranch[n];
        blocks[block.number] = block;
    }
}

All the test passed. As I mentioned, my plan is to improve the implementation. But, as usual in my TDD workflow, I prefer to give baby steps, make it works, and only then, make it right and make it fast. I had good experiences using this way of writing code, obtaining simple and solid implementations, having all the test to help me to change any internal implementation, without pain.

Encouraged by this result, I also started to refactor my blockchain implementation in my personal C# project, too:

https://github.com/ajlopez/BlockchainSharp

I started to use a block store with GetByParentHash into my BlockChain code:

https://github.com/ajlopez/BlockchainSharp/blob/master/Src/BlockchainSharp/Core/BlockChain.cs

I wrote about my previous implementation in this post.

Stay tuned!

Angel “Java” Lopez

@ajlopez

2 Comments »

  1. […] Post Next PostNext […]

    Pingback by Building A Blockchain (10) | Angel "Java" Lopez on Blog — May 30, 2016 @ 10:21 am

  2. […] Previous Post […]

    Pingback by Building A Blockchain (12) | Angel "Java" Lopez on Blog — June 6, 2016 @ 9:01 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: