Search for: All records

Although Bitcoin was intended to be a decentralized digital currency, in practice, mining power is quite concentrated. This fact is a persistent source of concern for the Bitcoin community. We provide an explanation using a simple model to capture miners' incentives to invest in equipment. In our model, n miners compete for a prize of fixed size. Each miner chooses an investment q_i, incurring cost c_iq_i, and then receives reward q^{\alpha}∑_j q_j^{\alpha}, for some \alpha≥1. When c_i = c+j for all i,j, and α=1, there is a unique equilibrium where all miners invest equally. However, we prove that under seemingly mild deviations from this model, equilibrium outcomes become drastically more centralized. In particular, (a) When costs are asymmetric, if miner i chooses to invest, then miner j has market share at least 1−c_j/c_i. That is, if miner j has costs that are (e.g.) 20% lower than those of miner i, then miner j must control at least 20% of the \emph{total} mining power. (b) In the presence of economies of scale (α>1), every market participant has a market share of at least 1−1/α, implying that the market features at most α/(α−1) miners in total. We discuss the implications of our results for the future design of cryptocurrencies. In particular, our work further motivates the study of protocols that minimize "orphaned" blocks, proof-of-stake protocols, and incentive compatible protocols. 

We consider the following communication problem: Alice and Bob each have some valuation functions $$v_1(\cdot)$$ and $$v_2(\cdot)$$ over subsets of $$m$$ items, and their goal is to partition the items into $$S, \bar{S}$$ in a way that maximizes the welfare, $$v_1(S) + v_2(\bar{S})$$. We study both the allocation problem, which asks for a welfare-maximizing partition and the decision problem, which asks whether or not there exists a partition guaranteeing certain welfare, for binary XOS valuations. For interactive protocols with $poly(m)$ communication, a tight 3/4-approximation is known for both [Fei06,DS06]. For interactive protocols, the allocation problem is provably harder than the decision problem: any solution to the allocation problem implies a solution to the decision problem with one additional round and $$\log m$$ additional bits of communication via a trivial reduction. Surprisingly, the allocation problem is provably easier for simultaneous protocols. Specifically, we show: 1) There exists a simultaneous, randomized protocol with polynomial communication that selects a partition whose expected welfare is at least $3/4$ of the optimum. This matches the guarantee of the best interactive, randomized protocol with polynomial communication. 2) For all $$\varepsilon > 0$$, any simultaneous, randomized protocol that decides whether the welfare of the optimal partition is $$\geq 1$$ or $$\leq 3/4 - 1/108+\varepsilon$$ correctly with probability $> 1/2 + 1/ poly(m)$ requires exponential communication. This provides a separation between the attainable approximation guarantees via interactive ($3/4$) versus simultaneous ($$\leq 3/4-1/108$$) protocols with polynomial communication. In other words, this trivial reduction from decision to allocation problems provably requires the extra round of communication. We further discuss the implications of our results for the design of truthful combinatorial auctions in general, and extensions to general XOS valuations. In particular, our protocol for the allocation problem implies a new style of truthful mechanisms.