Improving Transaction Speed and Scalability of Blockchain Systems via Parallel Proof of Work
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A blockchain is a distributed ledger forming a distributed consensus on a history of transactions, and is the underlying technology for the Bitcoin cryptocurrency. Its applications are far beyond the financial sector. The transaction verification process for cryptocurrencies is much slower than traditional digital transaction systems. One approach to scalability or the speed at which transactions are processed is to design a solution that offers faster Proof of Work. In this paper, we propose a method for accelerating the process of Proof of Work based on parallel mining rather than solo mining. The goal is to ensure that no more than two or more miners put the same effort into solving a specific block. The proposed method includes a process for selection of a manager, distribution of work and a reward system. This method has been implemented in a test environment that contains all the characteristics needed to perform Proof of Work for Bitcoin and has been tested, using a variety of case scenarios, by varying the difficulty level and number of validators. Experimental evaluations were performed locally and in a cloud environment, and experimental results demonstrate the feasibility the proposed method.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it