Barnabé Monnot

Xinyuan Sun, Davide Crapis, Matt Stephenson et al.

Credible commitment devices have been a popular approach for robust multi-agent coordination. However, existing commitment mechanisms face limitations like privacy, integrity, and susceptibility to mediator or user strategic behavior. It is unclear if the cooperative AI techniques we study are robust to real-world incentives and attack vectors. However, decentralized commitment devices that utilize cryptography have been deployed in the wild, and numerous studies have shown their ability to coordinate algorithmic agents facing adversarial opponents with significant economic incentives, currently in the order of several million to billions of dollars. In this paper, we use examples in the decentralization and, in particular, Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) (arXiv:1904.05234) literature to illustrate the potential security issues in cooperative AI. We call for expanded research into decentralized commitments to advance cooperative AI capabilities for secure coordination in open environments and empirical testing frameworks to evaluate multi-agent coordination ability given real-world commitment constraints.

Caspar Schwarz-Schilling, Joachim Neu, Barnabé Monnot et al.

Recently, two attacks were presented against Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Ethereum: one where short-range reorganizations of the underlying consensus chain are used to increase individual validators' profits and delay consensus decisions, and one where adversarial network delay is leveraged to stall consensus decisions indefinitely. We provide refined variants of these attacks, considerably relaxing the requirements on adversarial stake and network timing, and thus rendering the attacks more severe. Combining techniques from both refined attacks, we obtain a third attack which allows an adversary with vanishingly small fraction of stake and no control over network message propagation (assuming instead probabilistic message propagation) to cause even long-range consensus chain reorganizations. Honest-but-rational or ideologically motivated validators could use this attack to increase their profits or stall the protocol, threatening incentive alignment and security of PoS Ethereum. The attack can also lead to destabilization of consensus from congestion in vote processing.

Stefanos Leonardos, Barnabé Monnot, Daniël Reijsbergen et al.

Participation in permissionless blockchains results in competition over system resources, which needs to be controlled with fees. Ethereum's current fee mechanism is implemented via a first-price auction that results in unpredictable fees as well as other inefficiencies. EIP-1559 is a recent, improved proposal that introduces a number of innovative features such as a dynamically adaptive base fee that is burned, instead of being paid to the miners. Despite intense interest in understanding its properties, several basic questions such as whether and under what conditions does this protocol self-stabilize have remained elusive thus far. We perform a thorough analysis of the resulting fee market dynamic mechanism via a combination of tools from game theory and dynamical systems. We start by providing bounds on the step-size of the base fee update rule that suffice for global convergence to equilibrium via Lyapunov arguments. In the negative direction, we show that for larger step-sizes instability and even formally chaotic behavior are possible under a wide range of settings. We complement these qualitative results with quantitative bounds on the resulting range of base fees. We conclude our analysis with a thorough experimental case study that corroborates our theoretical findings.