\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Dynamic Posted-Price Mechanisms for the Blockchain Transaction-Fee Market.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ferreira, M. V. X.; Moroz, D. J.; Parkes, D. C.; and Stern, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, of
AFT '21, pages 86–99, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Paper\n \n \n \n video\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 81 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{ferreira2021dynamic,\n author = {Ferreira, Matheus V. X. and Moroz, Daniel J. and Parkes, David C. and Stern, Mitchell},\n title = {Dynamic Posted-Price Mechanisms for the Blockchain Transaction-Fee Market},\n year = {2021},\n isbn = {9781450390828},\n publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},\n address = {New York, NY, USA},\n url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14144},\n doi = {10.1145/3479722.3480991},\n abstract = {In recent years, prominent blockchain systems such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have experienced explosive growth in transaction volume, leading to frequent surges in demand for limited block space and causing transaction fees to fluctuate by orders of magnitude. The status quo auctions sell space using a first-price auction [27]; however, users find it difficult to estimate how much they need to bid in order to get their transactions accepted onto the chain. If they bid too low, their transactions can have long confirmation times. If they bid too high, they pay larger fees than necessary.In light of these issues, new transaction fee mechanisms have been proposed, most notably EIP-1559 [4], aiming to provide better usability. EIP-1559 is a history-dependent mechanism that relies on block utilization to adjust a base fee. We propose an alternative design - a dynamic posted-price mechanism - which uses not only block utilization but also observable bids from past blocks to compute a posted-price for subsequent blocks. We show its potential to reduce price volatility by providing examples for which the prices of EIP-1559 are unstable while the prices of the proposed mechanism are stable. More generally, whenever the demand for the blockchain stabilizes, we ask if our mechanism is able to converge to a stable state. Our main result provides sufficient conditions in a probabilistic setting for which the proposed mechanism is approximately welfare optimal and the prices are stable. Our main technical contribution towards establishing stability is an iterative algorithm that, given oracle access to a Lipschitz continuous and strictly concave function f, converges to a fixed point of f.},\n booktitle = {Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies},\n pages = {86–99},\n numpages = {14},\n location = {Arlington, Virginia},\n series = {AFT '21},\n url_Video = {https://youtu.be/Tv_Rqdq9kw0}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n In recent years, prominent blockchain systems such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have experienced explosive growth in transaction volume, leading to frequent surges in demand for limited block space and causing transaction fees to fluctuate by orders of magnitude. The status quo auctions sell space using a first-price auction [27]; however, users find it difficult to estimate how much they need to bid in order to get their transactions accepted onto the chain. If they bid too low, their transactions can have long confirmation times. If they bid too high, they pay larger fees than necessary.In light of these issues, new transaction fee mechanisms have been proposed, most notably EIP-1559 [4], aiming to provide better usability. EIP-1559 is a history-dependent mechanism that relies on block utilization to adjust a base fee. We propose an alternative design - a dynamic posted-price mechanism - which uses not only block utilization but also observable bids from past blocks to compute a posted-price for subsequent blocks. We show its potential to reduce price volatility by providing examples for which the prices of EIP-1559 are unstable while the prices of the proposed mechanism are stable. More generally, whenever the demand for the blockchain stabilizes, we ask if our mechanism is able to converge to a stable state. Our main result provides sufficient conditions in a probabilistic setting for which the proposed mechanism is approximately welfare optimal and the prices are stable. Our main technical contribution towards establishing stability is an iterative algorithm that, given oracle access to a Lipschitz continuous and strictly concave function f, converges to a fixed point of f.\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Proof-of-Stake Mining Games with Perfect Randomness.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ferreira, M. V. X.; and Weinberg, S. M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, of
EC '21, pages 433–453, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Paper\n \n \n \n video\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 155 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{ferreira2021pos,\n author = {Ferreira, Matheus V. X. and Weinberg, S. Matthew},\n title = {Proof-of-Stake Mining Games with Perfect Randomness},\n year = {2021},\n isbn = {9781450385541},\n publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},\n address = {New York, NY, USA},\n url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.04069},\n doi = {10.1145/3465456.3467636},\n abstract = {Proof-of-Stake blockchains based on a longest-chain consensus protocol are an attractive energy-friendly alternative to the Proof-of-Work paradigm. However, formal barriers to "getting the incentives right" were recently discovered, driven by the desire to use the blockchain itself as a source of pseudorandomness. We consider instead a longest-chain Proof-of-Stake protocol with perfect, trusted, external randomness (e.g. a randomness beacon). We produce two main results. First, we show that a strategic miner can strictly outperform an honest miner with just 32.8% of the total stake. Note that a miner of this size cannot outperform an honest miner in the Proof-of-Work model. This establishes that even with access to a perfect randomness beacon, incentives in Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake longest-chain protocols are fundamentally different. Second, we prove that a strategic miner cannot outperform an honest miner with 30.8% of the total stake. This means that, while not quite as secure as the Proof-of-Work regime, desirable incentive properties of Proof-of-Work longest-chain protocols can be approximately recovered via Proof-of-Stake with a perfect randomness beacon. The space of possible strategies in a Proof-of-Stake mining game is significantly richer than in a Proof-of-Work game. Our main technical contribution is a characterization of potentially optimal strategies for a strategic miner, and in particular a proof that the corresponding infinite-state MDP admits an optimal strategy that is positive recurrent.},\n booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation},\n pages = {433–453},\n numpages = {21},\n keywords = {proof-of-stake blockchains, energy-efficiency, NASH equilibrium, cryptocurrency, random beacons},\n location = {Budapest, Hungary},\n series = {EC '21},\n url_Video = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSq8-YSWGrk}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Proof-of-Stake blockchains based on a longest-chain consensus protocol are an attractive energy-friendly alternative to the Proof-of-Work paradigm. However, formal barriers to \"getting the incentives right\" were recently discovered, driven by the desire to use the blockchain itself as a source of pseudorandomness. We consider instead a longest-chain Proof-of-Stake protocol with perfect, trusted, external randomness (e.g. a randomness beacon). We produce two main results. First, we show that a strategic miner can strictly outperform an honest miner with just 32.8% of the total stake. Note that a miner of this size cannot outperform an honest miner in the Proof-of-Work model. This establishes that even with access to a perfect randomness beacon, incentives in Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake longest-chain protocols are fundamentally different. Second, we prove that a strategic miner cannot outperform an honest miner with 30.8% of the total stake. This means that, while not quite as secure as the Proof-of-Work regime, desirable incentive properties of Proof-of-Work longest-chain protocols can be approximately recovered via Proof-of-Stake with a perfect randomness beacon. The space of possible strategies in a Proof-of-Stake mining game is significantly richer than in a Proof-of-Work game. Our main technical contribution is a characterization of potentially optimal strategies for a strategic miner, and in particular a proof that the corresponding infinite-state MDP admits an optimal strategy that is positive recurrent.\n
\n\n\n