Performance Modeling and Analysis of the Bitcoin Inventory Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchains are currently gaining attention as a newly emerging technology in both academia and industry, capable of impacting a variety of domains beyond cryptocurrencies. Performance modeling can be used to provide us with a deeper understanding of the behavior and dynamics within blockchain peer-to-peer networks. Blockchain system architects can leverage network models to properly tune their system and to reduce design costs significantly. In this paper, we focus on the original and well-established Bitcoin blockchain network. In particular, we propose a random graph model for performance modeling and analysis of the inventory-based protocol for block dissemination. This model addresses the impact of key blockchain parameters on the overall performance of Bitcoin. We derive some explicit and closed-form equations for block propagation delay and traffic overhead. We implement our model using the popular network simulator OMNet++. We validate the accuracy of our theoretical model and its implementation with our dataset mined from the Bitcoin network. Our results show the trade-off between the default number of connections per node, network bandwidth, and block size in order to compute the optimal block propagation delay over the network.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".