user41513: The blockchain consensus seems to be very related to the Game Theory, when each participant tries to achieve their "favorites", where defining "what favorites means" is not very easy, since a participant may ex. intends to gain more coins, while another one tries to destroy the system and decrease its reputation as a "competitor crypto-currency" etc.
However, in the Game theory Wikipedia page, there is a list of "Game types" such as : 

Cooperative / Non-cooperative, 
Symmetric / Asymmetric,
Zero-sum / Non-zero-sum, 
Simultaneous / Sequential, 
Perfect information and imperfect information, 
Combinatorial games, 
Infinitely long games, 
Discrete and continuous games, 
Differential games, 
Evolutionary game theory, 
Stochastic outcomes, 
Metagames, Pooling games, 
Mean field game theory ...

Regarding to above explanations, what types of these Game Theory are more involved in the blockchain consensus?

user89750: I believe your question is flawed. Consensus isn't about game theory, it's an agreement. While game theory is analysis of strategies dealing with competition. Yes game theory has been applied outside of gaming. It's been used in war, business, even biology. Also it's not far from decision theory. While each individual in a consensus may have opinions facts to validate their positions they're still being judged by people. Game theory attempts to reduce decision making to mathematics, but ultimately we're talking about people here not calculators. Sometimes your best answer is just to eat the grapes & not pick side A or B. Meaning sometimes during a competition there is a winner. In consensus it's not always about a winner as much as it's about reaching an effective agreement which may be a 3rd option not yet revealed. Ultimately people can be irrational & do unexpected things. 

user89750: Again, you're not thinking clearly. Miners offer a service. Their job is to "mine". That said the more blockchains & off shoots of blockchains there are for them to mine, the more money is in it for them. The "large miners" mine all the coins they can. So it's not one coin vs another as you're thinking. There's no bidding war that says I can mine this coin & you can't. It's simply a matter of what coin is most productive for me as a miner to mine. It's possible that if one coin becomes too expensive to mine a miner could switch to mining another coin & that happens all the time. In addition some are "under contract" to mine a specific amount. Some will just mine empty blocks or blocks that need confirmations. Again this all depends on various factors that go into mining. What they mine is usually up to them. No one says they have to be under contract. It would make no sense for a miner to destroy something that they could potentially go back to & harvest more money at a later time should situations change for one reason or another. Their decision is either to be in the game or not. If they're a miner their decision is made. If they change their minds ok fine, but 1 miner can't destroy something without have a 51% majority. Which is why its important for everyone to mine. So no one person / company can do that. 

user89750: These papers are from 2014. Policies have changed since then. I suggest you read the NY agreement which happened because of these issues this paper put forth & read the following news articles that came out of the bitcoin community directly since then. Because of disagreements in policy & procedure bitcoin has been forked so many times it might as well be a roasted hog with an apple in its mouth. We have bitcoin core, bitcoin cash, bitcoin plus & "Bitcoin". Yes what you suggested did happen prior to the NY agreement. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/New_York_Agreement Which brought forth: https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77 & https://github.com/btc1/specifications/blob/master/PCS/PCS-2017-0002-segwit2x.md

41513: <p>The blockchain <strong>consensus</strong> seems to be very related to the <strong>Game Theory</strong>, when each participant tries to achieve their "<strong>favorites</strong>", where defining "<strong>what favorites means</strong>" is <strong>not</strong> very easy, since a participant may ex. intends to <strong>gain more coins</strong>, while another one tries to <strong>destroy the system</strong> and decrease its reputation as a "<strong>competitor crypto-currency</strong>" etc.</p>

<p>However, in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Game theory Wikipedia page</a>, there is a list of "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Game_types" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Game types</strong></a>" such as : </p>

<ul>
<li>Cooperative / Non-cooperative, </li>
<li>Symmetric / Asymmetric,</li>
<li>Zero-sum / Non-zero-sum, </li>
<li>Simultaneous / Sequential, </li>
<li>Perfect information and imperfect information, </li>
<li>Combinatorial games, </li>
<li>Infinitely long games, </li>
<li>Discrete and continuous games, </li>
<li>Differential games, </li>
<li>Evolutionary game theory, 
Stochastic outcomes, 
Metagames, Pooling games, 
Mean field game theory ...</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Regarding to above explanations</strong>, <strong>what types</strong> of these Game Theory are <strong>more involved</strong> in the blockchain consensus?</p>
 89750: <p>I believe your question is flawed. Consensus isn't about game theory, it's an agreement. While game theory is analysis of strategies dealing with competition. Yes game theory has been applied outside of gaming. It's been used in war, business, even biology. Also it's not far from decision theory. While each individual in a consensus may have opinions facts to validate their positions they're still being judged by people. Game theory attempts to reduce decision making to mathematics, but ultimately we're talking about people here not calculators. Sometimes your best answer is just to eat the grapes &amp; not pick side A or B. Meaning sometimes during a competition there is a winner. In consensus it's not always about a winner as much as it's about reaching an effective agreement which may be a 3rd option not yet revealed. Ultimately people can be irrational &amp; do unexpected things. </p>
 89750: <p>Again, you're not thinking clearly. Miners offer a service. Their job is to "mine". That said the more blockchains &amp; off shoots of blockchains there are for them to mine, the more money is in it for them. The "large miners" mine all the coins they can. So it's not one coin vs another as you're thinking. There's no bidding war that says I can mine this coin &amp; you can't. It's simply a matter of what coin is most productive for me as a miner to mine. It's possible that if one coin becomes too expensive to mine a miner could switch to mining another coin &amp; that happens all the time. In addition some are "under contract" to mine a specific amount. Some will just mine empty blocks or blocks that need confirmations. Again this all depends on various factors that go into mining. What they mine is usually up to them. No one says they have to be under contract. It would make no sense for a miner to destroy something that they could potentially go back to &amp; harvest more money at a later time should situations change for one reason or another. Their decision is either to be in the game or not. If they're a miner their decision is made. If they change their minds ok fine, but 1 miner can't destroy something without have a 51% majority. Which is why its important for everyone to mine. So no one person / company can do that. </p>
 89750: <p>These papers are from 2014. Policies have changed since then. I suggest you read the NY agreement which happened because of these issues this paper put forth &amp; read the following news articles that came out of the bitcoin community directly since then. Because of disagreements in policy &amp; procedure bitcoin has been forked so many times it might as well be a roasted hog with an apple in its mouth. We have bitcoin core, bitcoin cash, bitcoin plus &amp; "Bitcoin". Yes what you suggested did happen prior to the NY agreement. <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/New_York_Agreement" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/New_York_Agreement</a> Which brought forth: <a href="https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77</a> &amp; <a href="https://github.com/btc1/specifications/blob/master/PCS/PCS-2017-0002-segwit2x.md" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://github.com/btc1/specifications/blob/master/PCS/PCS-2017-0002-segwit2x.md</a></p>
