Socially Optimal Mining Pools

  • Ben Fisch
  • Rafael Pass
  • Abhi Shelat
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10660)


Mining for Bitcoins is a high-risk high-reward activity. Miners, seeking to reduce their variance and earn steadier rewards, collaborate in so-called pooling strategies where they jointly mine for Bitcoins. Whenever some pool participant is successful, the earned rewards are appropriately split among all pool participants. Currently a dozen of different pooling strategies are in use for Bitcoin mining. We here propose a formal model of utility and social optimality for Bitcoin mining (and analogous mining systems) based on the theory of discounted expected utility, and next study pooling strategies that maximize the utility of participating miners in this model. We focus on pools that achieve a steady-state utility, where the utility per unit of work of all participating miners converges to a common value. Our main result shows that one of the pooling strategies actually employed in practice—the so-called geometric pay pool—achieves the optimal steady-state utility for miners when its parameters are set appropriately. Our results apply not only to Bitcoin mining pools, but any other form of pooled mining or crowdsourcing computations where the participants engage in repeated random trials towards a common goal, and where “partial” solutions can be efficiently verified.


  1. [BMC+15]
    Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 104–121 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. [Eya15]
    Eyal, I.: The miner’s dilemma. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 89–103 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. [EZ89]
    Epstein, L.G., Zin, S.E.: Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica 57(4), 937–969 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [FL02]
    Frederick, S., Lowenstein, G.: Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J. Econ. Lit. XL, 351–401 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [JLG+14]
    Johnson, B., Laszka, A., Grossklags, J., Vasek, M., Moore, T.: Game-theoretic analysis of DDoS attacks against bitcoin mining pools. In: Böhme, R., Brenner, M., Moore, T., Smith, M. (eds.) FC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8438, pp. 72–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Google Scholar
  6. [KP78]
    Kreps, D.M., Porteus, E.L.: Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica 46(1), 185–200 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [LBS+15]
    Lewenberg, Y., Bachrach, Y., Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A., Rosenschein, J.S.: Bitcoin mining pools: a cooperative game theoretic analysis. In: Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2015, pp. 919–927 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. [LJG15]
    Laszka, A., Johnson, B., Grossklags, J.: When bitcoin mining pools run dry. In: Brenner, M., Christin, N., Johnson, B., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2015. LNCS, vol. 8976, pp. 63–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Nak08]
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Consulted 1(2012), 28 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. [PSS16]
    Pass, R., Seeman, L., Shelat, A.: Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 643–673. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Ros11]
    Rosenfeld, M.: Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems. CoRR, abs/1112.4980 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. [Sam37]
    Samuelson, P.: A note on measurement of utility. Rev. Econ. Stud. 4, 155–161 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [SBBR16]
    Schrijvers, O., Bonneau, J., Boneh, D., Roughgarden, T.: Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions. In: Grossklags, J., Preneel, B. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9603, pp. 477–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations