MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998208030 · doi:10.1109/blockchain.2019.00024

An Efficient Miner Strategy for Selecting Cryptocurrency Transactions

2019· article· en· W2998208030 on OpenAlexaff
Saulo dos Santos, Chukwuka Chukwuocha, Shahin Kamali, Ruppa K. Thulasiram

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)Computer scienceCryptocurrencyDatabase transactionHash functionBottleneckSet (abstract data type)BlockchainCryptographySortingComputer securityDatabaseAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin use the blockchain technology to record transactions in a distributed and secure way. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block in addition to a set of transactions that it records. The first step for a miner to add a new block to the blockchain is to select a set of pending transactions from a mempool. The total size of selected transactions should not exceed the fixed capacity of blocks. If a miner completes the computationally-hard task of finding the cryptographic hash of the formed block, the block can be added to the blockchain in which case the transactions in that block will become complete. Transaction might have a fee that is granted to the miner upon being complete. As such, when forming a new block, miners tend to select transactions that offer the best fees. Finding a set of transactions with maximum total fee that fit into a block translates to the classic knapsack problem, which is an NP-hard problem. Meanwhile, miners are in fierce competition for mining blocks and hence cannot dedicate too much computational power for selecting the best set of transactions. Most existing solutions to tackle this problem are based on sorting the set of pending transactions by the ratio between their fee and their size. While the sorting step is not a bottleneck in normal situations, transaction can grow explosively in case of a market turbulence like that of 2017. Meanwhile, the total number of transactions increases over time. As such, it is desirable to have an efficient strategy that does not rely on sorting transactions before forming a block. In this paper, we review some of the existing strategies for miners to select transactions from the mempool. We also introduce a robust solution called Size-Density Table (SDT) for selecting transactions that does not use sorting. We perform a theoretical and experimental analysis of our solutions to compare it with other strategies. Our results indicate that our algorithm runs faster than previous approaches while the quality of its solutions (the total fees collected in its blocks) is also slightly better than the best existing strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207