  Mining processes of Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies are currently
incentivized with voluntary transaction fees and fixed block rewards which will
halve gradually to zero. In the setting where optional and arbitrary
transaction fee becomes the remaining incentive, Carlsten et al.\ [CCS~2016]
find that an undercutting attack can become the equilibrium strategy for
miners. In undercutting, the attacker deliberately forks an existing chain by
leaving wealthy transactions unclaimed to attract petty complaint miners to its
fork. We observe that two simplifying assumptions in [CCS~2016] of fees
arriving at fixed rates and miners collecting {\em all} accumulated fees
regardless of block size limit are often infeasible in practice and find that
they are inaccurately inflating the profitability of undercutting. Studying
Bitcoin and Monero blockchain data, we find that the fees deliberately left out
by an undercutter may not be attractive to other miners (hence to the attacker
itself): the deliberately left out transactions may not fit into a new block
without "squeezing out" some other to-be transactions, and thus claimable fees
in the next round cannot be raised arbitrarily.
  This work views undercutting and shifting among chains rationally as mining
strategies of rational miners. We model profitability of undercutting strategy
with block size limit present, which bounds the claimable fees in a round and
gives rise to a pending (cushion) transaction set. In the proposed model, we
first identify the conditions necessary to make undercutting profitable. We
then present an easy-to-deploy defense against undercutting by selectively
assembling transactions into the new block to invalidate the identified
conditions. Under a typical setting with undercutters present, applying this
avoidance technique is a Nash Equilibrium. Finally, we complement the above
analytical results with experiments.
