Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 22 Jul 2020 (v1), last revised 13 Jul 2022 (this version, v4)]
Title:Towards Overcoming the Undercutting Problem
View PDFAbstract:Mining processes of Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies are currently incentivized with voluntary transaction fees and fixed block rewards which will halve gradually to zero. In the setting where optional and arbitrary transaction fee becomes the remaining incentive, Carlsten et al.\ [CCS~2016] find that an undercutting attack can become the equilibrium strategy for miners. In undercutting, the attacker deliberately forks an existing chain by leaving wealthy transactions unclaimed to attract petty complaint miners to its fork. We observe that two simplifying assumptions in [CCS~2016] of fees arriving at fixed rates and miners collecting {\em all} accumulated fees regardless of block size limit are often infeasible in practice and find that they are inaccurately inflating the profitability of undercutting. Studying Bitcoin and Monero blockchain data, we find that the fees deliberately left out by an undercutter may not be attractive to other miners (hence to the attacker itself): the deliberately left out transactions may not fit into a new block without "squeezing out" some other to-be transactions, and thus claimable fees in the next round cannot be raised arbitrarily.
This work views undercutting and shifting among chains rationally as mining strategies of rational miners. We model profitability of undercutting strategy with block size limit present, which bounds the claimable fees in a round and gives rise to a pending (cushion) transaction set. In the proposed model, we first identify the conditions necessary to make undercutting profitable. We then present an easy-to-deploy defense against undercutting by selectively assembling transactions into the new block to invalidate the identified conditions. Under a typical setting with undercutters present, applying this avoidance technique is a Nash Equilibrium. Finally, we complement the above analytical results with experiments.
Submission history
From: Tiantian Gong [view email][v1] Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:01:56 UTC (886 KB)
[v2] Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:47:50 UTC (1,120 KB)
[v3] Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:16:56 UTC (931 KB)
[v4] Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:32:05 UTC (1,209 KB)
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.