MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134742627 · doi:10.1145/3431726

Developing Cost-Effective Blockchain-Powered Applications

2021· article· en· W3134742627 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDatabase transactionBlockchainComputer scienceSmart contractFlexibility (engineering)Transaction processingFunction (biology)Computer securityUnit priceBusinessDatabaseEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethereum is a blockchain platform that hosts and executes smart contracts. Executing a function of a smart contract burns a certain amount of gas units (a.k.a., gas usage). The total gas usage depends on how much computing power is necessary to carry out the execution of the function. Ethereum follows a free-market policy for deciding the transaction fee for executing a transaction. More specifically, transaction issuers choose how much they are willing to pay for each unit of gas (a.k.a., gas price). The final transaction fee corresponds to the gas price times the gas usage. Miners process transactions to gain mining rewards, which come directly from these transaction fees. The flexibility and the inherent complexity of the gas system pose challenges to the development of blockchain-powered applications. Developers of blockchain-powered applications need to translate requests received in the frontend of their application into one or more smart contract transactions. Yet, it is unclear how developers should set the gas parameters of these transactions given that (i) miners are free to prioritize transactions whichever way they wish and (ii) the gas usage of a contract transaction is only known after the transaction is processed and included in a new block. In this article, we analyze the gas usage of Ethereum transactions that were processed between Oct. 2017 and Feb. 2019 (the Byzantium era). We discover that (i) most miners prioritize transactions based on their gas price only, (ii) 25% of the functions that received at least 10 transactions have an unstable gas usage (coefficient of variation = 19%), and (iii) a simple prediction model that operates on the recent gas usage of a function achieves an R-Squared of 0.76 and a median absolute percentage error of 3.3%. We conclude that (i) blockchain-powered application developers should be aware that transaction prioritization in Ethereum is frequently done based solely on the gas price of transactions (e.g., a higher transaction fee does not necessarily imply a higher transaction priority) and act accordingly and (ii) blockchain-powered application developers can leverage gas usage prediction models similar to ours to make more informed decisions to set the gas price of their transactions. Lastly, based on our findings, we list and discuss promising avenues for future research.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.309
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