Cryptocurrency Mining Games with Economic Discount and Decreasing Rewards

Authors Marcelo Arenas, Juan Reutter, Etienne Toussaint, Martín Ugarte, Francisco Vial, Domagoj Vrgoč



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.STACS.2020.54.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.5 MB
  • 16 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Marcelo Arenas
  • PUC Chile & IMFD Chile, Santigo, Chile
Juan Reutter
  • PUC Chile & IMFD Chile, Santigo, Chile
Etienne Toussaint
  • University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Martín Ugarte
  • PUC Chile & IMFD Chile, Santigo, Chile
Francisco Vial
  • ProtonMail & IMFD Chile, Santiago, Chile
Domagoj Vrgoč
  • PUC Chile & IMFD Chile, Santigo, Chile

Cite AsGet BibTex

Marcelo Arenas, Juan Reutter, Etienne Toussaint, Martín Ugarte, Francisco Vial, and Domagoj Vrgoč. Cryptocurrency Mining Games with Economic Discount and Decreasing Rewards. In 37th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2020). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 154, pp. 54:1-54:16, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2020.54

Abstract

In the consensus protocols used in most cryptocurrencies, participants called miners must find valid blocks of transactions and append them to a shared tree-like data structure. Ideally, the rules of the protocol should ensure that miners maximize their gains if they follow a default strategy, which consists on appending blocks only to the longest branch of the tree, called the blockchain. Our goal is to understand under which circumstances are miners encouraged to follow the default strategy. Unfortunately, most of the existing models work with simplified payoff functions, without considering the possibility that rewards decrease over time because of the game rules (like in Bitcoin), nor integrating the fact that a miner naturally prefers to be paid earlier than later (the economic concept of discount). In order to integrate these factors, we consider a more general model where issues such as economic discount and decreasing rewards can be set as parameters of an infinite stochastic game. In this model, we study the limit situation in which a miner does not receive a full reward for a block if it stops being in the blockchain. We show that if rewards are not decreasing, then miners do not have incentives to create new branches, no matter how high their computational power is. On the other hand, when working with decreasing rewards similar to those in Bitcoin, we show that miners have an incentive to create such branches. Nevertheless, this incentive only occurs when a miner controls a proportion of the computational power which is close to half of the computational power of the entire network.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
Keywords
  • cryptocurrency
  • game theory
  • cryptomining
  • economic discount
  • decreasing rewards

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Lear Bahack. Theoretical bitcoin attacks with less than half of the computational power (draft). CoRR, 2013. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7013.
  2. Bruno Biais, Christophe Bisière, Matthieu Bouvard, and Catherine Casamatta. The Blockchain Folk Theorem. The Review of Financial Studies, 32(5):1662-1715, 04 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhy095.
  3. Miles Carlsten, Harry Kalodner, S. Matthew Weinberg, and Arvind Narayanan. On the instability of bitcoin without the block reward. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016. Google Scholar
  4. Mauro Conti, Sandeep Kumar, Chhagan Lal, and Sushmita Ruj. A survey on security and privacy issues of bitcoin. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2018. Google Scholar
  5. Swapnil Dhamal, Tijani Chahed, Walid Ben-Ameur, Eitan Altman, Albert Sunny, and Sudheer Poojary. A stochastic game framework for analyzing computational investment strategies in distributed computing with application to blockchain mining. arXiv preprint, 2018. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03143.
  6. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014. Google Scholar
  7. GNU. The gnu multiple precision arithmetic library (v. 6.1.2), 2018. URL: https://gmplib.org/.
  8. Ethan Heilman. One weird trick to stop selfish miners: Fresh bitcoins, a solution for the honest miner (poster abstract). In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014. Google Scholar
  9. Benjamin Johnson, Aron Laszka, Jens Grossklags, Marie Vasek, and Tyler Moore. Game-theoretic analysis of ddos attacks against bitcoin mining pools. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014. Google Scholar
  10. Aggelos Kiayias, Elias Koutsoupias, Maria Kyropoulou, and Yiannis Tselekounis. Blockchain mining games. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC '16, pages 365-382, 2016. Google Scholar
  11. Elias Koutsoupias, Philip Lazos, Foluso Ogunlana, and Paolo Serafino. Blockchain mining games with pay-forward, 2019. To appear in The Web Conference. Google Scholar
  12. Joshua A. Kroll, Ian C. Davey, and Edward W. Felten. The economics of bitcoin mining, or bitcoin in the presence of adversaries. In The Twelfth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2013), 2013. Google Scholar
  13. Michael Mitzenmacher and Eli Upfal. Probability and computing - randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Google Scholar
  14. Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, 2008. URL: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.
  15. Arvind Narayanan, Joseph Bonneau, Edward W. Felten, Andrew Miller, and Steven Goldfeder. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies - A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton University Press, 2016. Google Scholar
  16. Arvind Narayanan and Jeremy Clark. Bitcoin’s academic pedigree. Commun. ACM, 60(12):36-45, 2017. Google Scholar
  17. Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2015:796, 2015. Google Scholar
  18. Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, EuroS&P 2016, pages 305-320, 2016. Google Scholar
  19. Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 515-532, 2017. Google Scholar
  20. Alexander Spiegelman, Idit Keidar, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Game of coins. arXiv preprint, 2018. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.08979.
  21. R.P. Stanley. Catalan Numbers. Cambridge University Press, 2015. Google Scholar
  22. Christopher P Thompson. Ethereum - Distributed Consensus (A Concise Ethereum History Book). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017. Google Scholar
  23. Itay Tsabary and Ittay Eyal. The gap game. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 713-728. ACM, 2018. Google Scholar
  24. Marie Vasek, Micah Thornton, and Tyler Moore. Empirical analysis of denial-of-service attacks in the bitcoin ecosystem. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014. Google Scholar
  25. Bitcoin Cash Website. https://www.bitcoincash.org, 2018. URL: https://www.bitcoincash.org.
  26. Ethereum Website. https://ethereum.org, 2018. URL: https://ethereum.org.
  27. Litecoin Website. https://litecoin.org, 2018. URL: https://litecoin.org.
  28. Monero Website. https://getmonero.org, 2018. URL: https://getmonero.org.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail