Game-Theoretic Analysis of DDoS Attacks Against Bitcoin Mining Pools
One of the unique features of the digital currency Bitcoin is that new cash is introduced by so-called miners carrying out resource-intensive proof-of-work operations. To increase their chances of obtaining freshly minted bitcoins, miners typically join pools to collaborate on the computations. However, intense competition among mining pools has recently manifested in two ways. Miners may invest in additional computing resources to increase the likelihood of winning the next mining race. But, at times, a more sinister tactic is also employed: a mining pool may trigger a costly distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack to lower the expected success outlook of a competing mining pool. We explore the trade-off between these strategies with a series of game-theoretical models of competition between two pools of varying sizes. We consider differences in costs of investment and attack, as well as uncertainty over whether a DDoS attack will succeed. By characterizing the game’s equilibria, we can draw a number of conclusions. In particular, we find that pools have a greater incentive to attack large pools than small ones. We also observe that larger mining pools have a greater incentive to attack than smaller ones.
KeywordsGame theory Bitcoin Internet Security DDoS
This research was partly supported by the Penn State Institute for CyberScience, CyLab at Carnegie Mellon under grant DAAD19-02-1-0389 from the Army Research Office, and the National Science Foundation under ITR award CCF-0424422 (TRUST). We also thank the reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper.
- 1.Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (2008)
- 5.Plohmann, D., Gerhards-Padilla, E.: Case study of the miner botnet. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CYCON), pp. 345–360 (2012)Google Scholar
- 6.Vasek, M., Thornton, M., Moore, T.: Empirical analysis of Denial-of-Service attacks in the Bitcoin ecosystem. In: Böhme, R., Brenner, M., Moore, T., Smith, M. (eds.) FC 2014 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 8438, pp. 57–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
- 9.Grossklags, J., Christin, N., Chuang, J.: Secure or insure? a game-theoretic analysis of information security games. In: Proceedings of the 2008 World Wide Web Conference (WWW’08), Beijing, China, April 2008, pp. 209–218 (2008)Google Scholar
- 14.Cremonini, M., Nizovtsev, D.: Understanding and influencing attackers’ decisions: Implications for security investment strategies. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security (WEIS), Cambridge, UK, June 2006Google Scholar
- 18.Laszka, A., Felegyhazi, M., Buttyán, L.: A survey of interdependent security games. Technical report CRYSYS-TR-2012-11-15, CrySyS Lab, Budapest University of Technology and Economics (2012)Google Scholar
- 22.Wu, Q., Shiva, S., Roy, S., Ellis, C., Datla, V.: On modeling and simulation of game theory-based defense mechanisms against DOS and DDOS attacks. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Spring Simulation Multiconference, pp. 159:1–159:8 (2010)Google Scholar
- 24.Christin, N., Grossklags, J., Chuang, J.: Near rationality and competitive equilibria in networked systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Practice and Theory of Incentives in Networked Systems, pp. 213–219 (2004)Google Scholar
- 25.Kroll, J., Davey, I., Felten, E.: The economics of Bitcoin mining, or Bitcoin in the presence of adversaries. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security (WEIS), Washington, DC, June 2013Google Scholar
- 26.Babaioff, M., Dobzinski, S., Oren, S., Zohar, A.: On Bitcoin and red balloons. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC), pp. 56–73 (2012)Google Scholar