Multidimensional Blockchain Fees are (Essentially) Optimal

Guillermo Angeris,Theo Diamandis,Ciamac Moallemi

2024-05-19

Abstract:In this paper we show that, using only mild assumptions, previously proposed multidimensional blockchain fee markets are essentially optimal, even against worst-case adversaries. In particular, we show that the average welfare gap between the following two scenarios is at most $O(1/\sqrt{T})$, where $T$ is the length of the time horizon considered. In the first scenario, the designer knows all future actions by users and is allowed to fix the optimal prices of resources ahead of time, based on the designer's oracular knowledge of those actions. In the second, the prices are updated by a very simple algorithm that does not have this oracular knowledge, a special case of which is similar to EIP-1559, the base fee mechanism used by the Ethereum blockchain. Roughly speaking, this means that, on average, over a reasonable timescale, there is no difference in welfare between 'correctly' fixing the prices, with oracular knowledge of the future, when compared to the proposed algorithm. We show a matching lower bound of $\Omega(1/\sqrt{T})$ for any implementable algorithm and also separately consider the case where the adversary is known to be stochastic.

Computer Science and Game Theory,Optimization and Control

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### What problems does this paper attempt to solve?

This paper aims to explore and prove the optimality of the multi - dimensional blockchain fee market. Specifically, by introducing the concept of regret in online convex optimization, the authors show that under certain assumptions, the proposed multi - dimensional blockchain fee market mechanism is still nearly optimal in the worst - case adversary attacks.

#### Main problem description:

1. **Resource pricing and transaction fee mechanism**:
- The blockchain system needs to charge a fee for each transaction to allocate limited computing resources.
- Currently, most blockchains use dynamic fee mechanisms, such as EIP - 1559, to adjust the base fee according to the current demand.

2. **Multi - dimensional fee mechanism**:
- A single - dimensional fee mechanism cannot flexibly reflect the prices of different resources, limiting the throughput of the blockchain.
- The multi - dimensional fee mechanism allows different resources (such as computing, storage, etc.) to be priced separately, thus improving efficiency.

3. **Optimality evaluation**:
- The paper attempts to answer: in the face of uncertainty and malicious behavior, are the existing multi - dimensional fee mechanisms effective enough?
- The authors evaluate the performance of the algorithm by comparing the welfare gaps in two scenarios:
- Scenario 1: The designer knows all future user behaviors in advance and can set the optimal price based on this information.
- Scenario 2: Use a simple dynamic update algorithm (similar to EIP - 1559) without predicting future behaviors.

4. **Conclusion**:
- Research shows that within a reasonably long time range, the average welfare gap between these two scenarios is \(O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\right)\), where \(T\) is the length of time considered.
- This means that even in the worst - case scenario, the dynamic update algorithm can approach the optimal solution, and the gap gradually decreases as time increases.

### Formula summary:

- Average welfare gap formula:
\[
\text{Average welfare gap}=O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\right)
\]
- Regret formula:
\[
R = \sum_{t = 1}^{T}f_t(p_t)-\sum_{t = 1}^{T}f_t(p^*)
\]
where \(p_t\) is the actual resource price used, and \(p^*\) is the optimal resource price.
- Average regret formula:
\[
\frac{R}{T}\leq C\sqrt{\frac{1}{T}}
\]

### Conclusion and significance:

The research results show that even in the presence of malicious behavior, a simple dynamic update algorithm can still effectively approximate the optimal resource price, which is of great significance for designing more robust and efficient blockchain transaction fee mechanisms.