Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Non-coercive extortion in game theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A binding reward offer can extort money from a player in a one-shot game.

desk verdict Reward-based extortion is a real idea, but the paper's uniqueness theorem has a counterexample and the 2x2 counts need verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21795 v1 pith:7WA5JO7N submitted 2025-07-29 cs.GT

Maria Alejandra Ramirez , Rosemarie Nagel , David Wolpert , Jürgen Jost This is my paper
classification cs.GT MSC 91A0591A1091A1891A80
keywords extortioncommitmentoutcome-contingentpaymentsnon-coerciveone-shotgames2x2subgameperfectequilibriumside
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a player or outside agent can extract money from another player in a single play of a game by committing to pay a reward if a specified action is taken, rather than by threatening punishment. The commitment adds a preliminary choose-Accept-or-Decline stage to the original simultaneous-move game: accepting means paying the fee, while declining triggers a promised payment designed to move the equilibrium to an outcome that is worse for the target. The authors prove that the scheme succeeds exactly when the target's payoff after accepting exceeds their payoff after declining, identify which games admit such shifts, and give formulas for the largest fee and the smallest required reward. Applied to 2x2 games, their classification says 56.25% are vulnerable to a two-player version and 16.6% to a one-player version, with win-win games the most exposed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the binding threat, defined as a commitment to an outcome-contingent side payment: the extortioner promises to pay $c_2$ to a specified recipient whenever that recipient plays a chosen strategy, and the commitment is common knowledge and enforceable even when honoring it after a Decline is privately costly. This one commitment converts a simultaneous normal-form game into an extensive-form game with an Accept/Decline root, which forces the target to choose between paying the fee and suffering a shifted equilibrium. The technical engine is subgame perfect equilibrium in $\Gamma_M$, with the Accept-game equilibrium kept at $s^*$ because the Accept payoff is an affine transform, and the Decline-game equilibrium forced to be unique and worse for the target by the two conditions on $c_2$ in Theorem 2.1: one creates the new equilibrium and one eliminates the old one.

What would settle it

Run the paper's Concord example with the fee $c_1 = 2$, the conditional payment $c_2 = 3$, and the commitment enforced by a verifiable smart contract: the theory predicts the row player accepts because accepting pays 8 versus 6 for declining. Widespread declines despite a verifiable commitment would falsify the mechanism's behavioral prediction; mathematically, any 2x2 game satisfying Theorem 2.1 and inequality (6) is predicted to yield profit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that extortion does not require force: a binding promise to pay an outcome-contingent reward can itself be a threat. Starting from a normal-form base game $G_B$ with a unique pure Nash equilibrium $s^*$, the extortioner offers: pay me $c_1$, or if you decline I give $c_2$ to player $i_p$ whenever they play $s^\circledast_{i_p}$. This creates an extensive-form manipulated game $\Gamma_M$. Because subtracting a constant fee from the target's payoffs leaves equilibria unchanged, the Accept-game equilibrium is still $s^*$, while the reward is chosen so that the Decline game has a unique equilibrium $s^{*D}$ with the recipient playing the rewarded strategy and the target worse off. Theorem 2.2 states that extortion succeeds if and only if $u^A_{i_c}(s^{*A}) > u^D_{i_c}(s^{*D})$; equivalently, the largest extractable fee is the gap between the target's base payoff at the original equilibrium and their payoff at the Decline equilibrium. Susceptible games are those in which at least one player reaches their best possible outcome at the unique equilibrium: win-win, biased, and unfair 2x2 games, but not coordination or cyclic games.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme works only if the extortioner can make a truly binding commitment to pay the reward after a Decline, even when honoring that promise is against their own interest; if the target can call the bluff, the threat evaporates and rational targets decline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any susceptible game with unique pure equilibria, the extortioner can collect a fee up to the difference between the target's equilibrium payoff in the base game and their payoff in the Decline game, without ever punishing anyone.
  • For 2x2 games, exactly 56.25% are vulnerable to the two-player extortion scheme with an external agent, namely games where at least one player achieves their best possible outcome at equilibrium.
  • Win-win (no-conflict) games are the most exposed class, because either player can be extorted to preserve a mutually best equilibrium.
  • The one-player variant, where the target is also the reward recipient, is strictly more restrictive: it requires the target to have a dominant strategy, the co-player not to, and the target's best and worst outcomes to be diagonal, leaving 16.6% of 2x2 games susceptible.
  • When the extortioner is a player inside the game, an additional condition on payoff magnitudes decides whether issuing the threat is worthwhile, so payoff size rather than only ordinal structure becomes decisive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the same mechanism turns efficient equilibria into liabilities: the property that makes an outcome attractive, namely that a player gets their best possible payoff, is exactly what makes that player willing to pay protection money.
  • We infer that the pure-strategy restriction understates the reach of the mechanism, since the paper notes its formulation extends directly to mixed strategies, which could change which equilibrium the target compares after declining.
  • A testable behavioral extension is to compare acceptance rates when the conditional payment is enforced by an irreversible smart contract versus a mere verbal promise; the binding-credibility premise predicts a sharp difference between the two conditions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'non-coercive extortion' mechanism in which an extortioner makes a binding commitment to make an outcome-contingent payment to one player (ip) if the extorted player (ic) declines to pay a fee. The threat is not a punishment but a reward that shifts the Nash equilibrium of the base game to a worse outcome for the extorted player. The authors derive conditions for successful extortion, identify susceptible games, and give formulas for the maximum extractable profit and the minimum required payment. They apply the framework to 2x2 games and discuss three role scenarios: an external extortioner with two players, an external extortioner with one player, and a player-extortioner. The paper also discusses applications to smart contracts and blockchain systems.

Significance. The mechanism is interesting and the paper contributes a novel framing: using positive side payments as a credible threat to extract rents, rather than using them to implement efficient equilibria. If the central theorem were correct, the paper would provide a useful taxonomy of 2x2 games susceptible to such extortion and explicit payoff formulas for the three scenarios. The distinction between two-player and one-player extortion, and between external and player extortioners, is a valuable structuring of the problem. However, the central characterization rests on a uniqueness theorem that is false as stated, so the main claims are not currently established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Theorem 2.1] Theorem 2.1 is false as stated. Consider a two-player base game with row payoffs (1,1;0,1) and column payoffs (2,1;1,0) for profiles (T,L), (T,R), (B,L), (B,R). The unique pure Nash equilibrium is (T,L), so Assumption 2.1 holds. Let ip be the column player and set s⊛_ip = R. For any c2 > 1, both conditions of Theorem 2.1 hold: the equilibrium-creation condition gives c2 > u_col(L,T) - u_col(R,T) = 1, and the equilibrium-uniqueness condition gives the same bound. However, in the Decline game the column player strictly prefers R against both row actions, while the row player is indifferent between T and B against R; hence both (T,R) and (B,R) are pure Nash equilibria of GD. Thus the theorem's 'if' direction fails. Since Theorem 2.2 and Corollaries 2.2 and 2.3 rely on uniqueness of the Decline-game equilibrium, the characterization of susceptible games and the minimum-payment formula are not established as stated.
  2. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 2.1] The proof of Theorem 2.1 rules out only the base equilibrium s∗ and assumes that B_−ip(s⊛_ip) is a singleton. It never checks that no profile other than s∗ and the proposed (s⊛_ip, s∗D_−ip) is an equilibrium. The counterexample in the previous comment shows that this gap is real. The theorem needs an explicit strict-uniqueness or generic-payoff condition, or a proof that conditions 1 and 2 exclude all other profiles.
  3. [Section 2.1, Corollary 2.1] Corollary 2.1 is stated without requiring ic ≠ ip. For the one-player extortion scenario of Section 3.2, where the extorted player is also the payment recipient, the Decline payoff is u_ic(s∗D) + c2 whenever s⊛_ic ∈ s∗D, so condition (7) is neither necessary nor sufficient. The corollary should be restricted to the two-player extortion case (ic ≠ ip), or restated with the additional c2 term that appears in the one-player case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2] The payoff matrices under the headings 'Manipulated game (ΓM)', 'Accept game (GA)', and 'Decline game (GD)' appear shifted: the matrix displayed under 'ΓM' is the Accept-game payoff matrix, the matrix displayed under 'GA' is the Decline-game payoff matrix, and no matrix appears under the 'GD' heading. This makes the worked examples very hard to follow; the labels should be corrected and the matrices placed under their proper headings.
  2. [Section 2, Theorem 2.1] The theorem uses s∗D_−ip before defining s∗D. The statement should first define s∗D = (s⊛_ip, s∗D_−ip) and state that s∗D_−ip is the unique best response of player −ip to s⊛_ip.
  3. [Section 2.2, Corollary 2.2] The expression 'where cmax_1 > c_1' is vague; it should say that c_1 must satisfy c_1 < cmax_1, or that the supremum is not attained because the inequality is strict.
  4. [Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1] The percentages '56,25%' and '16,6%' use a decimal comma; for an English-language journal the decimal point should be used.
  5. [Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1] The paper states the percentage of susceptible 2x2 games but does not show the counting method. A short derivation, or a supplement listing the susceptible cells in the periodic chart, would make the claims reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the main conditions are direct SPE and best-response consequences; self-citations are contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The base game, Accept game, and Decline game are separate constructions (Definitions 1.1, 1.4, 1.5), and the subsequent results are obtained by writing best-response and subgame-perfect equilibrium conditions. Theorem 2.2 states that the extortioner profits iff uA_ic(s*A) > uD_ic(s*D); this is the backward-induction comparison for whether the extorted player chooses Accept, not a hidden assumption of the conclusion. Corollary 2.2 and the minimum-payment formulas are algebraic rearrangements of that same comparison and of the threshold inequalities in Theorem 2.1; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 2x2 susceptibility classification is computed from the ordinal payoff chart using Corollary 2.1, so it does not presuppose the classification. The paper's self-citations ([33], [37], [52]) are used for context and for possible extensions (counteroffers), and no load-bearing theorem is imported from them. A separate correctness caveat is that Theorem 2.1's sufficiency proof appears to establish only that s* is not an equilibrium, not full uniqueness; that is a mathematical gap, not a circularity. Overall, no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All substantive content rests on the commitment-device assumption and pure-strategy equilibrium selection; no free parameters are fitted to data, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The extortioner can make a binding commitment to pay c2 even when following through is payoff-negative, and this commitment is common knowledge.
    Definition 1.2 and the following paragraph require the extortioner to honor the c2 payment even without rational incentive; this is the credibility assumption the scheme depends on.
  • domain assumption The base, Accept and Decline games each have a unique pure Nash equilibrium, and players select pure-strategy equilibria.
    Assumption 2.1 requires a unique pure NE; Section 5 says mixed strategies are excluded because commitment credibility for randomization is debated. The central results do not cover mixed equilibria.
  • standard math Players are self-interested, rational, and have common knowledge of rationality.
    Stated in Section 5 as the fundamental assumptions; subgame perfect equilibrium backward induction relies on it.
  • domain assumption Payoffs are transferable utility: the side payments c1 and c2 enter payoffs linearly and are enforceable.
    Definitions 1.4 and 1.5 add or subtract constants to payoffs; this presumes money transfers with no wealth effects or enforcement costs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-coercive extortion in game theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WA5JO7N

@misc{pith2026250721795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-coercive extortion in game theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WA5JO7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21795}
}
read the original abstract

Commitments play a crucial role in game theory, shaping strategic interactions by either altering a player's own payoffs or influencing the incentives of others through outcome-contingent payments. While most research has focused on using commitments to achieve efficient equilibria, their potential applications beyond this goal remain largely unexplored. In this study, we introduce a non-coercive extortion mechanism that leverages commitments to outcome-contingent payments, demonstrating how a player or external agent can extract profit by offering rewards rather than threatening punishment. At the core of the mechanism is the introduction of sequentiality into a simultaneous-move game, fundamentally reshaping the strategic interaction. We derive the conditions under which extortion is successful, identify the class of games susceptible to this scheme, and determine both the maximum extractable profit and the minimum required payment. To illustrate the extortion mechanism, we apply it to 2x2 games, highlighting how even simple strategic settings can be vulnerable to this form of manipulation. Our results reveal strategic vulnerabilities in competitive settings, with significant implications for economic markets, diplomatic relations, and multi-agent systems operating in blockchain environments. This work broadens our understanding of commitments in game theory and raises critical questions about how to safeguard strategic interactions from exploitation through non-coercive extortion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21795 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Extortioner’s effect on the base game. The strategic interaction between players is initially described by the base game (GB). The extortioner presents a binding threat to the extorted player, who has to choose which game unfolds: the Accept game (GA) or the Decline game (GD). The resulting manipulated strategic interaction is an extensive-form game, denoted as ΓM. 1.3 Accept game Once the extortioner presents the b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Extortion scenarios. The extortion scheme involves three distinct roles: the extortioner, the extorted player (ic) and the recipient of the payment (ip). The extortioner aims to extract a profit (c1) from ic by posing the threat of making an outcome-contingent payment (c2) to ip. The specific extortion scenario depends on how these roles are assigned and whether the extortioner is an external agent or a player withi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2x2 games susceptible to a two-player extortion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2x2 games susceptible to a one-player extortion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Von Neumann and O

    J. Von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd rev(Princeton university press, 1947)

    work page 1947

  2. [2]

    Maschler, S

    M. Maschler, S. Zamir, and E. Solan, Game theory (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    González-Díaz, I

    J. González-Díaz, I. García-Jurado, and M. G. Fiestras-Janeiro, An introductory course on mathematical game theory and appli- cations. second edition, Vol. 238 (American Mathematical Society, 2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Schelling, The strategy of conflict(Harvard University Press, 1960)

    T. Schelling, The strategy of conflict(Harvard University Press, 1960)

    work page 1960

  5. [5]

    V. P. Crawford and H. R. Varian, Distortion of preferences and the nash theory of bargaining, Economics Letters3, 203 (1979)

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    Sobel, Distortion of utilities and the bargaining problem, Econo- metrica, 597 (1981)

    J. Sobel, Distortion of utilities and the bargaining problem, Econo- metrica, 597 (1981)

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Fudenberg and J

    D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole, Game theory(MIT press, 1991)

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Vickers, Delegation and the theory of the firm, The Economic Journal 95, 138 (1985)

    J. Vickers, Delegation and the theory of the firm, The Economic Journal 95, 138 (1985)

    work page 1985

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Fershtman and K

    C. Fershtman and K. L. Judd, Equilibrium incentives in oligopoly, The American Economic Review, 927 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    Fershtman, K

    C. Fershtman, K. L. Judd, and E. Kalai, Observable contracts: strategic delegation and cooperation, International Economic Re- view, 551 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

    M. L. Katz, Game-playing agents: unobservable contracts as precommitments, The RAND Journal of Economics, 307 (1991)

    1991

  4. [12]

    Stackelberg, Marktform und gleichgewicht (Julius Springer, 1934)

    H. Stackelberg, Marktform und gleichgewicht (Julius Springer, 1934)

    1934

  5. [13]

    J. H. Hamilton and S. M. Slutsky, Endogenous timing in duopoly games: stackelberg or cournot equilibria, Games and Economic Behavior 2, 29 (1990)

    1990

  6. [14]

    Van Damme and S

    E. Van Damme and S. Hurkens, Commitment robust equilibria and endogenous timing, Games and Economic behavior15, 290 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Van Damme and S

    E. Van Damme and S. Hurkens, Endogenous stackelberg leader- ship, Games and Economic Behavior28, 105 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    Commitment and extortion

    P. Harrenstein, F. Brandt, and F. Fischer, “Commitment and extortion”, Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (2007), pp. 1–8

    2007

  9. [17]

    Renou, Commitment games, Games and Economic Behavior66, 488 (2009)

    L. Renou, Commitment games, Games and Economic Behavior66, 488 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    M. O. Jackson and S. Wilkie, Endogenous games and mechanisms: side payments among players, The Review of Economic Studies72, 543 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Prat and A

    A. Prat and A. Rustichini, Games played through agents, Econo- metrica 71, 989 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    Calvó-Armengol and M

    A. Calvó-Armengol and M. O. Jackson, Peer pressure, Journal of the European Economic Association8, 62 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    R. H. Coase, The problem of social cost, Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1 (1960)

    1960

  14. [22]

    H.R.Varian,Asolutiontotheproblemofexternalitieswhenagents are well-informed, The American Economic Review, 1278 (1994)

    1994

  15. [23]

    Andreoni and H

    J. Andreoni and H. Varian, Preplay contracting in the prisoners’ dilemma, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences96, 10933 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    Charness, G

    G. Charness, G. R. Fréchette, and C.-Z. Qin, Endogenous transfers in the prisoner’s dilemma game: an experimental test of cooper- ation and coordination, Games and Economic Behavior60, 287 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Fong and J

    Y.-f. Fong and J. Surti, The optimal degree of cooperation in the repeated prisoners’ dilemma with side payments, Games and Economic Behavior 67, 277 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Ellsberg, The theory and practice of blackmail, Lecture at the Lowell Institute, Boston, MA, March10 (1959)

    D. Ellsberg, The theory and practice of blackmail, Lecture at the Lowell Institute, Boston, MA, March10 (1959)

    1959

  19. [27]

    Rahwan et al., Machine behaviour, Nature568, 477 (2019)

    I. Rahwan et al., Machine behaviour, Nature568, 477 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Dafoe et al., Open problems in cooperative ai, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630 (2020)

    A. Dafoe et al., Open problems in cooperative ai, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hammond et al., Multi-agent risks from advanced ai, tech

    L. Hammond et al., Multi-agent risks from advanced ai, tech. rep. 1 (Cooperative AI Foundation, 2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    W. H. Press and F. J. Dyson, Iterated prisoner’s dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 10409 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Hilbe, M

    C. Hilbe, M. A. Nowak, and K. Sigmund, Evolution of extortion in iterated prisoner’s dilemma games, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110, 6913 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Hilbe, A

    C. Hilbe, A. Traulsen, and K. Sigmund, Partners or rivals? strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, Games and economic behavior 92, 41 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Gamemining:howtomakemoney from those about to play a game

    J.W.BonoandD.H.Wolpert,“Gamemining:howtomakemoney from those about to play a game”,Entangled political economy (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2014), pp. 179–211

    2014

  26. [34]

    R. Selten, Spieltheoretische behandlung eines oligopolmod- ells mit nachfrageträgheit: teil i: bestimmung des dynamis- chen preisgleichgewichts, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswis- senschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 301 (1965)

    1965

  27. [35]

    J. C. Harsanyi and R. Selten, A general theory of equilibrium selection in games(MIT press, 1988). 9 Ramírez et al. (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    E.VanDamme, Stabilityandperfectionofnashequilibria ,Vol.339 (Springer, 1991)

    1991

  29. [37]

    A. C. Moore, F. Germano, and R. Nagel, Understanding human behavior through similarity: a geometric and behavioral rules-based approach to games, workingpaper (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Robinson and D

    D. Robinson and D. Goforth, The topology of the 2x2 games: a new periodic table, Vol. 3 (Routledge, 2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    Bruns, Atlas of 2x2 games: transforming conflict and coopera- tion, (2015)

    B. Bruns, Atlas of 2x2 games: transforming conflict and coopera- tion, (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Buterin et al., Ethereum white paper, GitHub repository 1, 5 (2013)

    V. Buterin et al., Ethereum white paper, GitHub repository 1, 5 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Hawk: theblockchainmodelofcryptographyandprivacy-preservingsmart contracts

    A. Kosba, A. Miller, E. Shi, Z. Wen, and C. Papamanthou, “Hawk: theblockchainmodelofcryptographyandprivacy-preservingsmart contracts”, 2016 ieee symposium on security and privacy (sp) (IEEE, 2016), pp. 839–858

    2016

  34. [42]

    Di Pierro, What is the blockchain?, Computing in Science & Engineering 19, 92 (2017)

    M. Di Pierro, What is the blockchain?, Computing in Science & Engineering 19, 92 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Tennenholtz, Program equilibrium, Games and Economic Be- havior 49, 363 (2004)

    M. Tennenholtz, Program equilibrium, Games and Economic Be- havior 49, 363 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Program equilibrium in the prisoner’s dilemma via löb’s theorem

    P. LaVictoire, B. Fallenstein, E. Yudkowsky, M. Barasz, P. Chris- tiano, and M. Herreshoff, “Program equilibrium in the prisoner’s dilemma via löb’s theorem”, Aaai workshop on multiagent interac- tion without prior coordination (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Making smart contracts smarter

    L. Luu, D.-H. Chu, H. Olickel, P. Saxena, and A. Hobor, “Making smart contracts smarter”, Proceedings of the 2016 acm sigsac conference on computer and communications security (2016), pp. 254–269

    2016

  38. [46]

    Oesterheld, Robust program equilibrium, Theory and Decision 86, 143 (2019)

    C. Oesterheld, Robust program equilibrium, Theory and Decision 86, 143 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Smart contracts for bribing miners

    P. McCorry, A. Hicks, and S. Meiklejohn, “Smart contracts for bribing miners”, Financial cryptography and data security: fc 2018 international workshops, bitcoin, voting, and wtsc, nieuwpoort, cu- raçao, march 2, 2018, revised selected papers 22 (2019), pp. 3–18

    2019

  40. [48]

    Flash boys 2.0: frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability

    P. Daian et al., “Flash boys 2.0: frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability”, 2020 ieee symposium on security and privacy (sp) (IEEE, 2020), pp. 910–927

    2020

  41. [49]

    X Sun, D Crapis, M Stephenson, B Monnot, T Thiery, and J Passerat-Palmbach, Cooperative ai via decentralized commitment devices, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07815 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. O. Jackson, A crash course in implementation theory, Social choice and welfare18, 655 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    K-implementation

    D. Monderer and M. Tennenholtz, “K-implementation”, Proceed- ings of the 4th acm conference on electronic commerce (2003), pp. 19–28

    2003

  44. [52]

    M. A. Ramirez, Y. Kolumbus, R. Nagel, D. Wolpert, and J. Jost, Game manipulators–the strategic implications of binding contracts, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10586 (2023). 10 Ramírez et al. (2025) Fig. 3. 2x2 games susceptible to a two-player extortion. To indicate the class of ...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.