The Bitcoin cryptocurrency records its transactions in a public log called the blockchain. Its security rests critically on the distributed protocol that maintains the blockchain, run by participants called miners. Conventional wisdom asserts that the protocol is incentive-compatible and secure against colluding minority groups, i.e., it incentivizes miners to follow the protocol as prescribed. We show that the Bitcoin protocol is not incentive-compatible. We present an attack with which colluding miners obtain a revenue larger than their fair share. This attack can have significant consequences for Bitcoin: Rational miners will prefer to join the selfish miners, and the colluding group will increase in size until it becomes a majority. At this point, the Bitcoin system ceases to be a decentralized currency. Selfish mining is feasible for any group size of colluding miners. We propose a practical modification to the Bitcoin protocol that protects against selfish mining pools that command less than 1 4 of the resources. This threshold is lower than the wrongly assumed 1 2 bound, but better than the current reality where a group of any size can compromise the system.
Recent work @cite_12 addresses the lack of incentive for disseminating transactions between miners, since each of them prefers to collect the transaction fee himself. This is unrelated to the mining incentive mechanism we discuss.
@cite_12
2952115223 2066462806 2000646855 2789931105
Abstract Cryptographic assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum provide distributed consensus with a Proof-of-Work protocol and incentive-based engineering. The consensus is inherently dependent on the value of the asset due to the incentives. The value of these assets frequently fluctuates, which in turn influences the incentive component of the consensus mechanism. For a proof-of-work consensus to be secure, the participation reward must have a perceived real-world value. The future of this perception is not at all clear. The recent 70 drop in the value of Bitcoin versus the US Dollar may be precipitating a circle of declining security of the platform which we explore in depth in this paper. In this paper, we analyze the impact of fluctuations on the security of Bitcoin now, and in the future. We introduce a novel method to examine the rationale of a miner based on the price fluctuations. We integrate our method with an existing security evaluation framework and simulator. Using our approach, we determine and report on the impact of the value of the cryptographic asset on the security of the blockchain given the miner’s rationale. Our method allows us to evaluate the impact of different methods of incentive manipulation such as reduced block-reward and transaction fees, by simulation. Many large decentralized systems rely on information propagation to ensure their proper function. We examine a common scenario in which only participants that are aware of the information can compete for some reward, and thus informed participants have an incentive not to propagate information to others. One recent example in which such tension arises is the 2009 DARPA Network Challenge (finding red balloons). We focus on another prominent example: Bitcoin, a decentralized electronic currency system. Bitcoin represents a radical new approach to monetary systems. It has been getting a large amount of public attention over the last year, both in policy discussions and in the popular press. Its cryptographic fundamentals have largely held up even as its usage has become increasingly widespread. We find, however, that it exhibits a fundamental problem of a different nature, based on how its incentives are structured. We propose a modification to the protocol that can eliminate this problem. Bitcoin relies on a peer-to-peer network to track transactions that are performed with the currency. For this purpose, every transaction a node learns about should be transmitted to its neighbors in the network. As the protocol is currently defined and implemented, it does not provide an incentive for nodes to broadcast transactions they are aware of. In fact, it provides an incentive not to do so. Our solution is to augment the protocol with a scheme that rewards information propagation. Since clones are easy to create in the Bitcoin system, an important feature of our scheme is Sybil-proofness. We show that our proposed scheme succeeds in setting the correct incentives, that it is Sybil-proof, and that it requires only a small payment overhead, all this is achieved with iterated elimination of dominated strategies. We complement this result by showing that there are no reward schemes in which information propagation and no self-cloning is a dominant strategy. This paper considers the problem of publishing "transaction data" for research purposes. Each transaction is an arbitrary set of items chosen from a large universe. Detailed transaction data provides an electronic image of one's life. This has two implications. One, transaction data are excellent candidates for data mining research. Two, use of transaction data would raise serious concerns over individual privacy. Therefore, before transaction data is released for data mining, it must be made anonymous so that data subjects cannot be re-identified. The challenge is that transaction data has no structure and can be extremely high dimensional. Traditional anonymization methods lose too much information on such data. To date, there has been no satisfactory privacy notion and solution proposed for anonymizing transaction data. This paper proposes one way to address this issue. The rise of centralized mining pools for risk sharing does not necessarily undermine the decentralization required for public blockchains. However, mining pools as a financial innovation significantly escalates the arms race among competing miners and thus increases the energy consumption of proof-of-work-based blockchains. Each individual miner's cross-pool diversification and endogenous fees charged by pools generally sustain decentralization --- larger pools better internalize their externality on global hash rates, charge higher fees, attract disproportionately fewer miners, and thus grow slower. Empirical evidence from Bitcoin mining supports our model predictions, and the economic insights apply to many other blockchain protocols, as well as mainstream industries with similar characteristics.