Imagine you're splitting a restaurant bill, but instead of dividing evenly, you use a scheme that weights by when each person ordered. If you know the weighting formula, you can game when you order to pay less than your fair share. That's the core mechanism here: mining pool payout schemes weight contributions by timing, and attackers who understand the formula can adjust their power allocation dynamically to extract outsized rewards. The committed claim: all prior analyses of power-adjusting block withholding attacks (PAW, FAW, T-PAW) used Global-Reset Proportional (GRP) payout — a scheme almost no real pool actually deploys. This paper re-derives the revenue ratios under the three schemes pools actually use: PPLNS, round-based Proportional (PROP), and exponential-decay (EXP). The gap between GRP-predicted gains and actual gains is not a rounding error — it's up to an order of magnitude in the wrong direction for PROP. The analytical machinery is genuinely careful. For PPLNS, the authors use renewal-theory arguments tied to the sliding-window structure. For PROP and EXP, they model the open-round carry process and derive stationary distributions. They also introduce a new attack variant — Power Adjusting Hopping (PAH) — where the adversary adjusts power based on blockwork age without withholding any block. This is a cleaner, harder-to-detect attack, and PROP turns out to be highly vulnerable to it. The ladder result is the headline: GRP overstates T-PAW gain under PROP by up to 10× and understates it under EXP for the original slush decay rate. PPLNS emerges as the least vulnerable scheme — immune to PAH entirely and partially mitigating T-PAW. EXP faces a genuine dilemma: slow decay invites PAH, fast decay invites T-PAW. There's no free lunch in the decay-rate parameter space. Integrity is solid for a theoretical paper. All analytical results are verified by Monte Carlo simulation, which provides an independent computational check on the closed-form derivations. The paper handles T-PAW as the general case containing FAW and PAW as special cases, so the results are not cherry-picked for a single attack variant. The comparison to GRP is explicit and unflattering to prior work, which is a good sign — authors who are honest about what was wrong before are usually honest about what's still missing. The practical implication is direct: pool operators choosing payout schemes now have scheme-specific security analyses rather than relying on GRP as a proxy. PPLNS is the clear winner on attack resistance. Any pool running PROP should be concerned. EXP pools need to think carefully about their decay parameter — and the paper gives them the analytical tools to do so. The obvious successor experiment is empirical validation on real blockchain data — detecting whether PAH or T-PAW attacks are actually occurring in the wild against PROP or EXP pools. The authors likely didn't run this because it requires pool-level data that's hard to obtain and attack detection is its own research program. But without it, the threat remains theoretical.
