Skip to main content
Log in

Discouraging pool block withholding attacks in Bitcoin

  • Published:
Journal of Combinatorial Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The existence of mining pools in Bitcoin enables the miners to gain more stable reward. However, it is proved that the pools are vulnerable for security attacks. A strategic pool manager has strong incentive to launch pool block withholding attack by sending some of her miners to infiltrate the other pools. The infiltrating miners try to find (partial) proof-of-work solutions but discard the solution that can actually create blocks. As it is hard to recognize malicious miners,these miners still get reward in the infiltrated pools. In this work, we revisit the game-theoretic model for pool block withholding attacks and propose a revised approach to reallocate the reward to the miners. Instead of proportionally allocating the reward to all miners, a pool manager deducts a fraction from the reward to award the miner who actually mined the block. Accordingly, we prove that, under our scheme, for any number of mining pools, no-pool-attacks is always a Nash equilibrium. Moreover, with only two minority mining pools, no-pool-attacks is the unique Nash equilibrium

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Notes

  1. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin.

  2. Bitcoin hashrate distribution. https://blockchain.info/pools. Accessed June 14, 2019.

  3. https://btc.com/stats/pool?pool_mode=month.

References

  • Alkalay-Houlihan C, Shah N (2019) The pure price of anarchy of pool block withholding attacks in bitcoin mining. In: The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pages 1724–1731. AAAI Press

  • Babaioff M , Dobzinski S, Oren S, Zohar A (2012) On bitcoin and red balloons. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on electronic commerce. pages 56–73. ACM, 2012

  • Bag S, Ruj S, Sakurai K (2017) Bitcoin block withholding attack: analysis and mitigation. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 12(8):1967–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bag S, Sakurai K (2016) Yet another note on block withholding attack on bitcoin mining pools. In: Information security: 19th international conference. 9866: 167–180

  • Carlsten M, Kalodner HA, Matthew-Weinberg S, Narayanan A (2016) On the instability of bitcoin without the block reward. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. pages 154–167

  • Chen X , Papadimitriou CH, Roughgarden T (2019) An axiomatic approach to block rewards. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on advances in financial technologies. pages 124–131

  • Courtois NT, Bahack L (2014) On subversive miner strategies and block withholding attack in bitcoin digital currency. CoRR

  • Eyal I (2015) The miner’s dilemma. In: Symposium on security and privacy. 89–103

  • Eyal I, Sirer EG (2014) Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Commun ACM 61(7):95–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghighat AT, Shajari M (2019) Block withholding game among bitcoin mining pools. Future Gener 97:482–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman E, Kendler A, Zohar A, Goldberg S (2015) Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In: 24th USENIX security symposium. pages 129–144. USENIX Association

  • Johnson B, Laszka A, Grossklags J, Vasek M, Moore T (2014) Game-theoretic analysis of ddos attacks against bitcoin mining pools. Financl Cryptograph Data Secur FC 8438:72–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewenberg Y, Bachrach Y, Sompolinsky Y, Zohar A, Rosenschein JS (2015) Bitcoin mining pools: a cooperative game theoretic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pages 919–927. ACM

  • Luu L, Saha R, Parameshwaran I, Saxena P, Hobor A (2015) On power splitting games in distributed computation: the case of bitcoin pooled mining. IACR Cryptol ePrint Arch 2015:155

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousavinejad IE, Yang F, Han Q-L, Vlacic Ljubo B (2018) A novel cyber attack detection method in networked control systems. Trans Cybernd 48(11):3254–3264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system

  • Rosenfeld M (2011) Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.4980, abs/1112.4980

  • Schrijvers O, Bonneau J, Boneh D, Roughgarden T (2016) Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions. In: Financial cryptography and data security: 20th international conference. 9603: 477–498

  • Tosh DK, Shetty S, Liang X, Kamhoua CA, Kwiat KA, Njilla L (2017) Security implications of blockchain cloud with analysis of block withholding attack. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE/ACM international symposium on cluster, cloud and grid computing. 458–467. IEEE Computer Society/ACM

  • Wang Q, Chen Y (2021) The tight bound for pure price of anarchy in an extended miner’s dilemma game. CoRR

  • Wu D, Liu X-D, Yan X, Peng R, Li G (2019) Equilibrium analysis of bitcoin block withholding attack: a generalized model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 185:318–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan Q, Wei P, Jia K, Xue H (2020) Analysis of blockchain protocol against static adversarial miners corrupted by long delay attackers. Sci China Inf Sci 63(3):1

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61832003, 61872334), the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA27000000), the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Grant No. P0034420).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaohan Shan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Code availability

Code sharing not applicable to this article as no experiments were simulated by code/program during the current study.

Consent for publication

Yes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Z., Li, B., Shan, X. et al. Discouraging pool block withholding attacks in Bitcoin. J Comb Optim 43, 444–459 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-021-00768-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-021-00768-4

Keywords

Navigation