In the Bitcoin system, miners are incentivized to join the system and validate transactions through fees paid by the users. A simple "pay your bid" auction has been employed to determine the transaction fees. Recently, Lavi, Sattath and Zohar [LSZ17] proposed an alternative fee design, called the monopolistic price (MP) mechanism, aimed at improving the revenue for the miners. Although MP is not strictly incentive compatible (IC), they studied how close to IC the mechanism is for iid distributions, and conjectured that it is nearly IC asymptotically based on extensive simulations and some analysis. In this paper, we prove that the MP mechanism is nearly incentive compatible for any iid distribution as the number of users grows large. This holds true with respect to other attacks such as splitting bids. We also prove a conjecture in [LSZ17] that MP dominates the RSOP auction in revenue (originally defined in Goldberg et al. [GHKSW06] for digital goods). These results lend support to MP as a Bitcoin fee design candidate. Additionally, we explore some possible intrinsic correlations between incentive compatibility and revenue in general.
[1]
Joseph Bonneau,et al.
Why Buy When You Can Rent? - Bribery Attacks on Bitcoin-Style Consensus
,
2016,
Financial Cryptography Workshops.
[2]
Joshua A. Kroll,et al.
Why buy when you can rent ? Bribery attacks on Bitcoin consensus
,
2015
.
[3]
Jacob D. Leshno,et al.
Monopoly without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin Payment System
,
2017,
The Review of Economic Studies.
[4]
Joshua A. Kroll,et al.
The Economics of Bitcoin Mining, or Bitcoin in the Presence of Adversaries
,
2013
.
[5]
S. Matthew Weinberg,et al.
On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
,
2016,
CCS.
[6]
Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.
Competitive auctions and digital goods
,
2001,
SODA '01.
[7]
Andrew V. Goldberg,et al.
Competitive Auctions for Multiple Digital Goods
,
2001,
ESA.
[8]
Or Sattath,et al.
Redesigning Bitcoin’s Fee Market
,
2017,
ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..
[9]
Anna R. Karlin,et al.
Competitive auctions
,
2006,
Games Econ. Behav..