A Social Welfare Maximization Mechanism for Blockchain Storage

Miners in the blockchain system are suffering from the ever-increasing storage costs, which in general have not been properly compensated by the users’ transaction fees. In the long run, this may lead to less participation of miners in the system and jeopardize the blockchain security. In this work, we mitigate such a blockchain storage sustainability issue by proposing a social welfare maximization mechanism, which encourages each user to pay sufficient transaction fees for the storage costs and consider the waiting time costs imposing on others. We model the interactions between the protocol designer, users, and miners as a three-stage Stackelberg game. In Stage I, the protocol designer optimizes the consensus parameters associated with the transaction fee per byte values and waiting time costs to maximize the social welfare. In Stage II, the users decide the transaction generation rates to maximize their payoffs. In Stage III, the miners select the transactions and record them into the blockchain to maximize their payoffs. Through characterizing the Nash equilibrium of the three-stage game, we find that the protocol designer can not only achieve maximum social welfare in Stage II and III of the model, but also incentivize each user pays sufficient transaction fees for storage costs. We also find that for users who generate transactions at lower rates, they may pay higher waiting time price per transaction for the waiting time costs they impose on other users. Ethereumbased numerical results showed that our proposed mechanism dominates the existing protocol in both social welfare and fees, achieves a higher fairness index than the existing protocol, and performs well even under heterogeneous-storage-cost miners.

[1]  Dusit Niyato,et al.  Auction Mechanisms in Cloud/Fog Computing Resource Allocation for Public Blockchain Networks , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[2]  Raj Jain,et al.  A Quantitative Measure Of Fairness And Discrimination For Resource Allocation In Shared Computer Systems , 1998, ArXiv.

[3]  Tsuyoshi Murata,et al.  {m , 1934, ACML.

[4]  Jacob D. Leshno,et al.  Monopoly without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin Payment System , 2017, The Review of Economic Studies.

[5]  Juanjuan Li,et al.  Transaction Queuing Game in Bitcoin BlockChain , 2018, 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[6]  Lichao Yang,et al.  Distributed Resource Management for Blockchain in Fog-Enabled IoT Networks , 2021, IEEE Internet of Things Journal.

[7]  R. Syski,et al.  Fundamentals of Queueing Theory , 1999, Technometrics.

[8]  P. Rizun A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit , 2016 .

[9]  R. Stephenson A and V , 1962, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  Zibin Zheng,et al.  A Secure and Efficient Blockchain-Based Data Trading Approach for Internet of Vehicles , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[11]  Wei Cai,et al.  Decentralized Applications: The Blockchain-Empowered Software System , 2018, IEEE Access.

[12]  Arvind Narayanan,et al.  Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies - A Comprehensive Introduction , 2016 .

[13]  Maureen O'Hara,et al.  From Mining to Markets: The Evolution of Bitcoin Transaction Fees , 2018, Journal of Financial Economics.

[14]  Yonggang Wen,et al.  A Survey on Consensus Mechanisms and Mining Strategy Management in Blockchain Networks , 2018, IEEE Access.

[15]  Ittay Eyal,et al.  The Gap Game , 2018, SYSTOR.

[16]  Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin : A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System , 2009 .

[17]  Bart Preneel,et al.  On the Necessity of a Prescribed Block Validity Consensus: Analyzing Bitcoin Unlimited Mining Protocol , 2017, CoNEXT.

[18]  Christian Decker,et al.  Information propagation in the Bitcoin network , 2013, IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings.

[19]  Holger Paul Keeler,et al.  Block arrivals in the Bitcoin blockchain , 2018, ArXiv.

[20]  Leeat Yariv Online Appendix , 2008 .

[21]  Zhu Han,et al.  When Mobile Blockchain Meets Edge Computing , 2017, IEEE Communications Magazine.