IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2106.09783.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Proof-of-Work Cryptocurrencies: Does Mining Technology Undermine Decentralization?

Author

Listed:
  • Agostino Capponi
  • Sveinn Olafsson
  • Humoud Alsabah

Abstract

Does the proof-of-work protocol serve its intended purpose of supporting decentralized cryptocurrency mining? To address this question, we develop a game-theoretical model where miners first invest in hardware to improve the efficiency of their operations, and then compete for mining rewards in a rent-seeking game. We argue that because of capacity constraints faced by miners, centralization in mining is lower than indicated by both public discourse and recent academic work. We show that advancements in hardware efficiency do not necessarily lead to larger miners increasing their advantage, but rather allow smaller miners to expand and new miners to enter the competition. Our calibrated model illustrates that hardware efficiency has a small impact on the cost of attacking a network, while the mining reward has a significant impact. This highlights the vulnerability of smaller and emerging cryptocurrencies, as well as of established cryptocurrencies transitioning to a fee-based mining reward scheme.

Suggested Citation

  • Agostino Capponi & Sveinn Olafsson & Humoud Alsabah, 2021. "Proof-of-Work Cryptocurrencies: Does Mining Technology Undermine Decentralization?," Papers 2106.09783, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.09783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.09783
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brunnermeier, Markus & Abadi, Joseph, 2018. "Blockchain Economics," CEPR Discussion Papers 13420, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Jonathan Chiu & Thorsten V. Koeppl, 2017. "The Economics Of Cryptocurrencies - Bitcoin And Beyond," Working Paper 1389, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    3. Eric Budish, 2018. "The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain," NBER Working Papers 24717, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Michel Rauchs & Garrick Hileman, 2017. "Global Cryptocurrency Benchmarking Study," Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance Reports 201704-gcbs, Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    5. Julien Prat & Benjamin Walter, 2021. "An Equilibrium Model of the Market for Bitcoin Mining," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(8), pages 2415-2452.
    6. Rainer Böhme & Nicolas Christin & Benjamin Edelman & Tyler Moore, 2015. "Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(2), pages 213-238, Spring.
    7. Bruno Biais & Christophe Bisière & Matthieu Bouvard & Catherine Casamatta, 2019. "The Blockchain Folk Theorem," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1662-1715.
    8. Yo-Der Song & Tomaso Aste, 2020. "The cost of Bitcoin mining has never really increased," Papers 2004.04605, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    9. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Gerard A. Pfann, 1996. "Adjustment Costs in Factor Demand," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1264-1292, September.
    10. Ferreira, Daniel & Li, Jin & Nikolowa, Radoslawa, 2019. "Corporate Capture of Blockchain Governance," CEPR Discussion Papers 13493, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Nitzan, Shmuel, 1994. "Modelling rent-seeking contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 41-60, May.
    12. Fan Fang & Carmine Ventre & Michail Basios & Leslie Kanthan & Lingbo Li & David Martinez-Regoband & Fan Wu, 2020. "Cryptocurrency Trading: A Comprehensive Survey," Papers 2003.11352, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    13. Michel Rauchs & Apolline Blandin & Kristina Klein & Gina Pieters & Martino Recanatini & Bryan Zhang, 2018. "2nd Global Cryptoasset Benchmarking Study," Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance Reports 201812-sgcbs, Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2021. "A Model of Cryptocurrencies," Working Papers 2021-67, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    2. A. Mantovi, 2021. "Bitcoin selection rule and foundational game theoretic representation of mining competition," Economics Department Working Papers 2021-EP02, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hanna Halaburda & Guillaume Haeringer & Joshua Gans & Neil Gandal, 2022. "The Microeconomics of Cryptocurrencies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 971-1013, September.
    2. Raphael Auer, 2019. "Beyond the doomsday economics of "proof-of-work" in cryptocurrencies," BIS Working Papers 765, Bank for International Settlements.
    3. Saketh Aleti & Bruce Mizrach, 2021. "Bitcoin spot and futures market microstructure," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(2), pages 194-225, February.
    4. Cong, Lin William & Li, Ye & Wang, Neng, 2022. "Token-based platform finance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 972-991.
    5. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Caselli, Stefano & Cillo, Alessandra & Masciandaro, Donato & Rabitti, Giovanni, 2021. "Money, privacy, anonymity: What do experiments tell us?," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. Nikhil Malik & Manmohan Aseri & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2022. "Why Bitcoin Will Fail to Scale?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7323-7349, October.
    7. Donato Masciandaro, 2018. "Central Bank Digital Cash and Cryptocurrencies: Insights from a New Baumol–Friedman Demand for Money," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 51(4), pages 540-550, December.
    8. Ye Li & Simon Mayer & Simon Mayer, 2021. "Money Creation in Decentralized Finance: A Dynamic Model of Stablecoin and Crypto Shadow Banking," CESifo Working Paper Series 9260, CESifo.
    9. Nick Arnosti & S. Matthew Weinberg, 2022. "Bitcoin: A Natural Oligopoly," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 4755-4771, July.
    10. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    11. Soria, Jorge & Moya, Jorge & Mohazab, Amin, 2023. "Optimal mining in proof-of-work blockchain protocols," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Rodney J. Garratt & Maarten R. C. van Oordt, 2023. "Why Fixed Costs Matter for Proof-of-Work–Based Cryptocurrencies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(11), pages 6482-6507, November.
    13. Brunnermeier, Markus & Abadi, Joseph, 2018. "Blockchain Economics," CEPR Discussion Papers 13420, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Benigno, Pierpaolo & Schilling, Linda M. & Uhlig, Harald, 2022. "Cryptocurrencies, currency competition, and the impossible trinity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    15. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2020. "A Model of Cryptocurrencies," NBER Working Papers 26816, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Miroslava Rajcaniova, 2021. "Interdependencies between Mining Costs, Mining Rewards and Blockchain Security," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 22(1), pages 25-62, May.
    17. Julien Prat & Benjamin Walter, 2021. "An Equilibrium Model of the Market for Bitcoin Mining," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(8), pages 2415-2452.
    18. Marchiori, Luca, 2021. "Monetary theory reversed: Virtual currency issuance and the inflation tax," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Ed Saiedi & Anders Broström & Felipe Ruiz, 2021. "Global drivers of cryptocurrency infrastructure adoption," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 353-406, June.
    20. Natkamon Tovanich & Nicolas Soulié & Petra Isenberg, 2021. "Visual analytics of bitcoin mining pool evolution : on the road toward stability?," Post-Print hal-02902465, HAL.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.09783. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.