IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2106.12332.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

From Griefing to Stability in Blockchain Mining Economies

Author

Listed:
  • Yun Kuen Cheung
  • Stefanos Leonardos
  • Georgios Piliouras
  • Shyam Sridhar

Abstract

We study a game-theoretic model of blockchain mining economies and show that griefing, a practice according to which participants harm other participants at some lesser cost to themselves, is a prevalent threat at its Nash equilibria. The proof relies on a generalization of evolutionary stability to non-homogeneous populations via griefing factors (ratios that measure network losses relative to deviator's own losses) which leads to a formal theoretical argument for the dissipation of resources, consolidation of power and high entry barriers that are currently observed in practice. A critical assumption in this type of analysis is that miners' decisions have significant influence in aggregate network outcomes (such as network hashrate). However, as networks grow larger, the miner's interaction more closely resembles a distributed production economy or Fisher market and its stability properties change. In this case, we derive a proportional response (PR) update protocol which converges to market equilibria at which griefing is irrelevant. Convergence holds for a wide range of miners risk profiles and various degrees of resource mobility between blockchains with different mining technologies. Our empirical findings in a case study with four mineable cryptocurrencies suggest that risk diversification, restricted mobility of resources (as enforced by different mining technologies) and network growth, all are contributing factors to the stability of the inherently volatile blockchain ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Yun Kuen Cheung & Stefanos Leonardos & Georgios Piliouras & Shyam Sridhar, 2021. "From Griefing to Stability in Blockchain Mining Economies," Papers 2106.12332, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.12332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.12332
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raphael Auer, 2019. "Beyond the Doomsday Economics of “Proof-of-Work” in Cryptocurrencies," Globalization Institute Working Papers 355, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    2. Hehenkamp, B. & Leininger, W. & Possajennikov, A., 2004. "Evolutionary equilibrium in Tullock contests: spite and overdissipation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1057, November.
    3. Eric Budish, 2018. "The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain," NBER Working Papers 24717, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Nikos Leonardos & Stefanos Leonardos & Georgios Piliouras, 2020. "Oceanic Games: Centralization Risks and Incentives in Blockchain Mining," Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, in: Panos Pardalos & Ilias Kotsireas & Yike Guo & William Knottenbelt (ed.), Mathematical Research for Blockchain Economy, pages 183-199, Springer.
    5. Cheung, Yun Kuen & Cole, Richard & Devanur, Nikhil R., 2020. "Tatonnement beyond gross substitutes? Gradient descent to the rescue," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 295-326.
    6. Amegashie, J. Atsu, 2012. "Productive versus destructive efforts in contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 461-468.
    7. Konrad, Kai A, 2000. "Sabotage in Rent-Seeking Contests," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 155-165, April.
    8. Joshua S. Gans & Neil Gandal, 2019. "More (or Less) Economic Limits of the Blockchain," NBER Working Papers 26534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Easley, David & O'Hara, Maureen & Basu, Soumya, 2019. "From mining to markets: The evolution of bitcoin transaction fees," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 91-109.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Divakaruni, Anantha & Zimmerman, Peter, 2023. "The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into money," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Zimmerman, Peter, 2020. "Blockchain structure and cryptocurrency prices," Bank of England working papers 855, Bank of England.
    5. Brunnermeier, Markus & Abadi, Joseph, 2018. "Blockchain Economics," CEPR Discussion Papers 13420, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Amegashie, J. Atsu, 2019. "Quantity-cum-quality contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 289-297.
    7. 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.
    8. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2020. "A Model of Cryptocurrencies," NBER Working Papers 26816, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Aner Sela, 2022. "Ineffective Prizes In Multi-Dimensional Contests," Working Papers 2205, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    10. Auer, Raphael & Tercero-Lucas, David, 2022. "Distrust or speculation? The socioeconomic drivers of U.S. cryptocurrency investments," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    11. Subhasish Chowdhury & Oliver Gürtler, 2015. "Sabotage in contests: a survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 135-155, July.
    12. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2023. "Decentralization through Tokenization," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(1), pages 247-299, February.
    13. Arye L. Hillman & Ngo Van Long, 2017. "Rent Seeking: The Social Cost of Contestable Benefits," CESifo Working Paper Series 6462, CESifo.
    14. Jonathan Chiu & Thorsten V. Koeppl, 2022. "The economics of cryptocurrency: Bitcoin and beyond," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 1762-1798, November.
    15. Tim Roughgarden, 2021. "Transaction Fee Mechanism Design," Papers 2106.01340, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    16. David Cerezo Sánchez, 2022. "Pravuil: Global Consensus for a United World," FinTech, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Doron Klunover, 2020. "Nice guys don't always finish last: succeeding in hierarchical organizations," Papers 2007.04435, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    18. Makarov, Igor & Schoar, Antoinette, 2021. "Blockchain analysis of the Bitcoin market," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118897, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Li Guo & Wolfgang Karl Hardle & Yubo Tao, 2018. "A Time-Varying Network for Cryptocurrencies," Papers 1802.03708, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    20. 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.

    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:2106.12332. 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.