Dimitris Karakostas

Dimitris Karakostas, Aggelos Kiayias, Thomas Zacharias

We study Nash-dynamics in the context of blockchain protocols. We introduce a formal model, within which one can assess whether the Nash dynamics can lead utility-maximizing participants to defect from the "honest" protocol operation, towards variations that exhibit one or more undesirable infractions, such as abstaining from participation and producing conflicting protocol histories. Blockchain protocols that do not lead to such infraction states are said to be compliant. Armed with this model, we evaluate the compliance of various Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) protocol families, with respect to different utility functions and reward schemes, leading to the following results: i) PoS ledgers under resource-proportional rewards can be compliant if costs are negligible, but non-compliant if costs are significant; ii) PoW and PoS under block-proportional rewards exhibit different compliance behavior, depending on the lossiness of the network; iii) PoS ledgers can be compliant w.r.t. one infraction, i.e., producing conflicting messages, but non-compliant (and non-equilibria) w.r.t. abstaining or an attack we call selfish signing; iv) taking externalities, such as exchange rate fluctuations, into account, we quantify the benefit of economic penalties, in the context of PoS protocols, in disincentivizing particular infractions.

Dimitris Karakostas, Aggelos Kiayias

We discuss the problem of facilitating tax auditing assuming "programmable money", i.e., digital monetary instruments that are managed by an underlying distributed ledger. We explore how a taxation authority can verify the declared returns of its citizens and create a counter-incentive to tax evasion by two distinct mechanisms. First, we describe a design which enables auditing it as a built-in feature with minimal changes on the underlying ledger's consensus protocol. Second, we offer an application-layer extension, which requires no modification in the underlying ledger's design. Both solutions provide a high level of privacy, ensuring that, apart from specific limited data given to the taxation authority, no additional information - beyond the information already published on the underlying ledger - is leaked.

Dimitris Karakostas, Aggelos Kiayias, Christos Nasikas et al.

Since the invention of Bitcoin one decade ago, numerous cryptocurrencies have sprung into existence. Among these, proof-of-work is the most common mechanism for achieving consensus, whilst a number of coins have adopted "ASIC-resistance" as a desirable property, claiming to be more "egalitarian,"S where egalitarianism refers to the power of each coin to participate in the creation of new coins. While proof-of-work consensus dominates the space, several new cryptocurrencies employ alternative consensus, such as proof-of-stake in which block minting opportunities are based on monetary ownership. A core criticism of proof-of-stake revolves around it being less egalitarian by making the rich richer, as opposed to proof-of-work in which everyone can contribute equally according to their computational power. In this paper, we give the first quantitative definition of a cryptocurrency's \emph{egalitarianism}. Based on our definition, we measure the egalitarianism of popular cryptocurrencies that (may or may not) employ ASIC-resistance, among them Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and Monero. Our simulations show, as expected, that ASIC-resistance increases a cryptocurrency's egalitarianism. We also measure the egalitarianism of a stake-based protocol, Ouroboros, and a hybrid proof-of-stake/proof-of-work cryptocurrency, Decred. We show that stake-based cryptocurrencies, under correctly selected parameters, can be perfectly egalitarian, perhaps contradicting folklore belief.