arXiv subjects

Roozbeh Sarenche

Publications and source records attributed to Roozbeh Sarenche.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Towards Decentralized Searcher Competition in MEV Markets

Centralization in maximal extractable value (MEV) markets is a significant concern for blockchain systems, as persistent concentration of economic power can weaken competition, reduce openness, and undermine the decentralization goals of permissionless protocols. While much of the existing analysis has focused on builders, validators, and block-building markets, this paper studies centralization from the perspective of searcher competition. We develop a heterogeneous model in which searchers differ in opportunity coverage and execution efficiency, and we analyze how auction design affects fairness, decentralization, and security among searchers competing for the same MEV opportunity. To evaluate searcher competition, we introduce two metrics: a Shapley-weighted Jain fairness index, which measures whether rewards are proportional to searchers' marginal contributions, and an expected-reward Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which measures concentration in long-run searcher rewards. Using these metrics, we first analyze the standard first-price, winner-take-all auction as a benchmark. Our analysis shows that, under searcher heterogeneity, first-price competition can reward rank dominance rather than marginal contribution, leading to concentrated rewards and weaker contribution-adjusted fairness. Motivated by these limitations, we propose an entry-filtered Shapley-capped auction mechanism that distributes searcher rewards more fairly and broadly among admitted high-quality submissions. Designing such a mechanism in a permissionless blockchain environment is challenging: searchers may create Sybil identities by submitting copied or degraded versions of the same execution strategy, and validators may collude with searchers to increase joint payoff. We address these concerns through Bayesian security constraints for copied-code Sybil deviations and validator-searcher coalition deviations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Bitcoin under Volatile Block Rewards: How Mempool Statistics Can Influence Bitcoin Mining

The security of Bitcoin protocols is deeply dependent on the incentives provided to miners, which come from a combination of block rewards and transaction fees. As Bitcoin experiences more halving events, the protocol reward converges to zero, making transaction fees the primary source of miner rewards. This shift in Bitcoin's incentivization mechanism, which introduces volatility into block rewards, leads to the emergence of new security threats or intensifies existing ones. Previous security analyses of Bitcoin have either considered a fixed block reward model or a highly simplified volatile model, overlooking the complexities of Bitcoin's mempool behavior. This paper presents a reinforcement learning-based tool to develop mining strategies under a more realistic volatile model. We employ the Asynchronous Advantage Actor-Critic (A3C) algorithm, which efficiently handles dynamic environments, such as the Bitcoin mempool, to derive near-optimal mining strategies when interacting with an environment that models the complexity of the Bitcoin mempool. This tool enables the analysis of adversarial mining strategies, such as selfish mining and undercutting, both before and after difficulty adjustments, providing insights into the effects of mining attacks in both the short and long term. We revisit the Bitcoin security threshold presented in the WeRLman paper and demonstrate that the implicit predictability of valuable transaction arrivals in this model leads to an underestimation of the reported threshold. Additionally, we show that, while adversarial strategies like selfish mining under the fixed reward model incur an initial loss period of at least two weeks, the transition toward a transaction-fee era incentivizes mining pools to abandon honest mining for immediate profits. This incentive is expected to become more significant as the protocol reward approaches zero in the future.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Commitment Attacks on Ethereum's Reward Mechanism

Validators in permissionless, large-scale blockchains, such as Ethereum, are typically payoff-maximizing, rational actors. Ethereum relies on in-protocol incentives, like rewards for correct and timely votes, to induce honest behavior and secure the blockchain. However, external incentives, such as the block proposer's opportunity to capture maximal extractable value (MEV), may tempt validators to deviate from honest protocol participation. We show a series of commitment attacks on LMD GHOST, a core part of Ethereum's consensus mechanism. We demonstrate how a single adversarial block proposer can orchestrate long-range chain reorganizations by manipulating Ethereum's reward system for timely votes. These attacks disrupt the intended balance of power between proposers and voters: by leveraging credible threats, the adversarial proposer can coerce voters from previous slots into supporting blocks that conflict with the honest chain, enabling a chain reorganization. In response, we introduce a novel reward mechanism that restores the voters' role as a check against proposer power. Our proposed mitigation is fairer and more decentralized, not only in the context of these attacks, but also practical for implementation in Ethereum.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Mining Power Destruction Attacks in the Presence of Petty-Compliant Mining Pools

Bitcoin's security relies on its Proof-of-Work consensus, where miners solve puzzles to propose blocks. The puzzle's difficulty is set by the difficulty adjustment mechanism (DAM), based on the network's available mining power. Attacks that destroy some portion of mining power can exploit the DAM to lower difficulty, making such attacks profitable. In this paper, we analyze three types of mining power destruction attacks in the presence of petty-compliant mining pools: selfish mining, bribery, and mining power distraction attacks. We analyze selfish mining while accounting for the distribution of mining power among pools, a factor often overlooked in the literature. Our findings indicate that selfish mining can be more destructive when the non-adversarial mining share is well distributed among pools. We also introduce a novel bribery attack, where the adversarial pool bribes petty-compliant pools to orphan others' blocks. For small pools, we demonstrate that the bribery attack can dominate strategies like selfish mining or undercutting. Lastly, we present the mining distraction attack, where the adversarial pool incentivizes petty-compliant pools to abandon Bitcoin's puzzle and mine for a simpler puzzle, thus wasting some part of their mining power. Similar to the previous attacks, this attack can lower the mining difficulty, but with the difference that it does not generate any evidence of mining power destruction, such as orphan blocks.

cs.CR↗