Abstract:In the face of limited block size, miners (e.g., in Bitcoin) prioritize high-bid transactions, forming a large part of their revenue. If the block size were to expand significantly, meeting all transaction demand due to infrastructure or protocol improvements, bids could drop to zero or to a minimum fee, reducing mining incentives and potentially affecting security. To address this, Lavi et al. (2022) introduced a monopolistic pricing mechanism where miners only include transactions paying a minimum price, ensuring some revenue but resulting in an unbounded loss in welfare. Nisan (2023) expands this by modeling bidders as patient, who wait indefinitely long for lower prices, causing price fluctuations even with stable demand. In order to capture users' diminishing interest in having their transactions added to the ledger over time, we consider a more realistic setting with quasi-patient users, where only a fraction $\delta \in [0,1]$ of pending transactions remains in the next round. This richer model encompasses both Lavi et al.'s impatient users ($\delta=0$) and Nisan's patient users ($\delta=1$) as special cases. We demonstrate that Nisan's fluctuating dynamics persist for $\delta$ close to 1, while for $\delta$ close to 0, the dynamics resemble the impatient case. For $\delta \in (0,1)$, we establish new bounds on price dynamics, revealing unexpected effects. Unlike the fully patient case, the bounds of the dynamics for $\delta<1$ depend on the demand curve and undergo a "transition phase". For some $\delta$, the model mirrors the fully patient setting, and for smaller $\delta' < \delta$, it stabilizes at the highest monopolist price, thus collapsing to the impatient case. We provide quantitative bounds and analytical results, showing that the bounds for $\delta=1$ are generally not tight for $\delta<1$, and we give guarantees on the minimum ("admission") price for transactions.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problems does this paper attempt to solve?
This paper aims to solve several key problems in the blockchain transaction fee mechanism. Especially in the case of limited block size, how to design an effective monopoly pricing mechanism to ensure that miners (or block leaders) have sufficient incentives to continue to participate in network maintenance, and at the same time maintain the security and efficiency of the system. Specifically:
1. **Block size limitation and transaction fee fluctuation**:
- When the block size is limited, miners will preferentially select transactions with the highest fees, which leads to increasingly high transaction fees, especially when the network is congested.
- If the block size is significantly increased to meet all transaction needs, the transaction fees may drop to zero or close to a constant minimum fee, thereby weakening the miners' mining motivation and affecting the security of the network.
2. **Limitations of existing models**:
- Lavi et al. [15] proposed a monopoly pricing mechanism in which miners can choose not to fill the entire block but only include those transactions that have paid the lowest price. Although this mechanism can ensure that miners have a certain income, it may lead to unbounded welfare losses.
- Nisan [19] extended this model by assuming that users are "patient", that is, they are willing to wait indefinitely until the transaction fees are low enough to be included in the block. However, this assumption is too idealized and ignores the weakening of users' interest in transactions over time.
3. **Introduction of the quasi - patient user model**:
- In order to more realistically reflect the actual behavior of users, this paper proposes a quasi - patient user model, in which only a part of the pending transactions will be retained in the next round, and the rest will be withdrawn. Specifically, the parameter \(\delta\in[0, 1]\) is used to represent the proportion of transactions retained in each round.
- This model covers two extreme cases: the impatient users (\(\delta = 0\)) in Lavi et al. [15] and the patient users (\(\delta = 1\)) in Nisan [19], and allows the study of the behavior of the monopoly pricing mechanism under different patience levels.
4. **Analysis of price dynamics and minimum admission price**:
- The price dynamics under different \(\delta\) values are studied. It is found that for \(\delta\) close to 1, price fluctuations still exist; while for \(\delta\) close to 0, the dynamic behavior is similar to that of impatient users.
- Quantitative bounds and analysis results on the minimum admission price (i.e., the minimum fee that users must pay to ensure that the transaction is finally included) are provided, revealing the differences in price behavior under different \(\delta\) values.
### Summary
By introducing the quasi - patient user model, this paper attempts to solve the deficiencies of existing monopoly pricing mechanisms under extreme assumptions, and provides a more realistic framework for analyzing and optimizing the blockchain transaction fee mechanism, thereby ensuring the continuous incentives of miners and the security of the network.