Paper detail

The Framework of Consensus Equilibria for Mining-Pool Games in Blockchain Ecosystems

The goal of this paper is to establish the general framework of consensus equilibria for Mining-Pool Games in Blockchain Ecosystems, and with the explanation for the stability of in terms of the existence of consensus equilibria related to mining gap game's behaviors by using one new concept called consensus games in Blockchain Ecosystems, here, the Blockchain ecosystem mainly means the economic activities by taking into the account of three types of different factors which are expenses, reward mechanism and mining power for the work on blockschain by applying the key consensus called Proof of Work due to Nakamoto in 2008. In order to do so, we first give an outline how the general existence of consensus equilibria for Mining Pool Games is formulated, and then used to explain the stable for Gap Games for Bitcoin in the sense by the existence of consensus equilibria under the framework of Blockchain consensus, we then establish a general existence result for consensus equilibria of general mining gap games by using the profit functions for miners as the payoffs in game theory. As applications, the general existence results for consensus equilibria of Gap games are established, which not only help us to claim the existence for the general stability for Gap games under the general framework of Blockchain ecosystems, but also allow us to illustrate a number of different phenomenon on the study of mining-pool games with possible impacts due to miners's gap behaviors with scenarios embedded n Bitcoin economics. Our study on the explanation for the stability of mining gap game for Blockchain ecosystems shows that the concept of consensus equilibria may play a important role for the development of fundamental theory for consensus economics.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.