  We study a game-theoretic model of blockchain mining economies and show that
griefing, a practice according to which participants harm other participants at
some lesser cost to themselves, is a prevalent threat at its Nash equilibria.
The proof relies on a generalization of evolutionary stability to
non-homogeneous populations via griefing factors (ratios that measure network
losses relative to deviator's own losses) which leads to a formal theoretical
argument for the dissipation of resources, consolidation of power and high
entry barriers that are currently observed in practice.
  A critical assumption in this type of analysis is that miners' decisions have
significant influence in aggregate network outcomes (such as network hashrate).
However, as networks grow larger, the miner's interaction more closely
resembles a distributed production economy or Fisher market and its stability
properties change. In this case, we derive a proportional response (PR) update
protocol which converges to market equilibria at which griefing is irrelevant.
Convergence holds for a wide range of miners risk profiles and various degrees
of resource mobility between blockchains with different mining technologies.
Our empirical findings in a case study with four mineable cryptocurrencies
suggest that risk diversification, restricted mobility of resources (as
enforced by different mining technologies) and network growth, all are
contributing factors to the stability of the inherently volatile blockchain
ecosystem.
