MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998674936 · doi:10.1109/blockchain.2019.00040

Fork Rate-Based Analysis of the Longest Chain Growth Time Interval of a PoW Blockchain

2019· article· en· W2998674936 on OpenAlexaff
Hirotsugu Seike, Yasukazu Aoki, Noboru Koshizuka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsComputer scienceBounded functionInterval (graph theory)Block (permutation group theory)Metric (unit)MathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nakamoto's consensus protocol, which is well known for its resistance to sybil attacks by using PoW (Proof of Work), enables us to build public blockchains, such as Bitcoin. In this protocol, miners seek to extend the longest chain by solving blockhash-based cryptographic puzzles and the required time is probabilistically determined. Therefore, the distribution of the time interval affects security, performance and applications which utilize the block height information. Some researchers assumed that the time follows an exponential distribution but this assumption requires that the blockchain network is fully synchronized. To overcome this unreal scenario, the bounded delay model, in which there is an upper bound for block propagation delay on the network, was proposed. However, it is difficult to calculate the upper bound without observing delay and bandwidth on real-world network links. To solve this problem, we proposed another method to analyze the distribution of the longest chain growth time interval by using the observed fork rate. We derived a closed-form lower bound for the CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function) of the time to update the global block height. We also obtained the Pearson distance which can be used as the metric to judge whether the network is approximately synchronous or not. Finally, we conducted network simulations for comparing our lower bound with the lower bound that is based on the bounded delay model. In numerical examples, we show how the block size affects these lower bounds.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207