Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryConsensus2016Design paperCorpus record

Stubborn Mining: Generalizing Selfish Mining and Combining with an Eclipse Attack

Stubborn mining. Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller and Elaine Shi.

The paper generalises the withholding strategies and shows they compose with an eclipse attack that starves a node of honest blocks.

A reading of the public paper. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not a claim about any later network.

A mining analysis that only models the 2014 selfish policy is incomplete about the strategies this paper adds.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
2

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • ePrint 2015/796https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/796
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    Selfish mining is one withholding policy. A miner can do better, in the paper's model, by sometimes publishing and sometimes hiding, and by eclipsing the victim.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The proposal

    The paper generalises the withholding strategies and shows they compose with an eclipse attack that starves a node of honest blocks.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    The strategy space is larger than the original selfish-mining policy.

    Eclipse is a network attack. Mining is a consensus attack. Together they change the revenue.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    The bound

    The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    Selfish mining is one withholding policy. A miner can do better, in the paper's model, by sometimes publishing and sometimes hiding, and by eclipsing the victim.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Which withholding rule is being modelled?

  2. 02 The proposal

    Observation

    What the study says

    The paper generalises the withholding strategies and shows they compose with an eclipse attack that starves a node of honest blocks.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Which withholding rule is being modelled?

  3. 03 The strategy space is larger than the original selfish-mining policy.

    Observation

    What the study says

    Eclipse is a network attack. Mining is a consensus attack. Together they change the revenue.

    Model

    What has to hold

    It is not an instruction for attacking a network.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Does the attack assume an eclipsed victim?

  4. 04 The bound

    Observation

    What the study says

    The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Which withholding rule is being modelled?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Withhold a block.
  2. 02Choose whether to publish based on the public tip, not only on the original selfish rule.
  3. 03If the victim is eclipsed, the attacker feeds the view that makes the withholding pay.
  4. 04Does the attack assume an eclipsed victim?

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the paper is for

    The cut

    A mining analysis that only models the 2014 selfish policy is incomplete about the strategies this paper adds.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.

  2. What happened after

    The cut

    Relay networks and peer-manager fixes are the practical responses. They do not repeal the model.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    Parameters of propagation decide the profit.

  • Network · Not re-measured

    It is not an instruction for attacking a network.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

Relay networks and peer-manager fixes are the practical responses. They do not repeal the model.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

Selfish mining is one withholding policy. A miner can do better, in the paper's model, by sometimes publishing and sometimes hiding, and by eclipsing the victim.

What the design proposes

  • The strategy space is larger than the original selfish-mining policy.
  • Eclipse is a network attack. Mining is a consensus attack. Together they change the revenue.
  • The result is model-dependent.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Withhold a block.
  • Choose whether to publish based on the public tip, not only on the original selfish rule.
  • If the victim is eclipsed, the attacker feeds the view that makes the withholding pay.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • The paper does not say a named pool is attacking today.
  • Parameters of propagation decide the profit.
  • It is not an instruction for attacking a network.

Why the desk still reads it

A mining analysis that only models the 2014 selfish policy is incomplete about the strategies this paper adds.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Stubborn mining
A family of withholding policies, not a single threshold.
Eclipse
Isolating a node so it sees only the attacker's blocks and transactions.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Concepts

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.