MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007170127 · doi:10.1109/tnse.2020.2974739

Impact of Node Churn in the Bitcoin Network

2020· article· en· W3007170127 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChurningNode (physics)Computer scienceComputer networkSynchronization (alternating current)Markov processMarkov chainBlock (permutation group theory)Distributed computingReal-time computingChannel (broadcasting)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this work is to evaluate the impact of node churn -nodes leaving and rejoining the network- on the Bitcoin network. We provide a comprehensive analytical model for the churning process. We use a Continuous Time Markov Chain (CTMC) to describe the behavior of a node, and then apply the results to model the changes in connectivity and the impact on network performance. We analyze the time needed to resynchronize a node upon rejoining the network and find that sleep times of the order of hours require synchronization times limited by a minute. We estimate the impact of sleep and synchronization time on overall network connectivity and block/transaction distribution time. Our results show that networks with less than 4000 nodes are sensitive to churn. This occurs due to opposing impact of decrease in network size (and diameter) due to sleep time and increase of communication load per node. However, the impact of churn on network with more than 4000 nodes is noticeable but small enough to make a large Bitcoin network fairly resilient to churn.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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