Performance Analysis of the IOTA DAG-Based Distributed Ledger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed ledgers (DLs) provide many advantages over centralized solutions in Internet of Things projects, including but not limited to improved security, transparency, and fault tolerance. To leverage DLs at scale, their well-known limitation (i.e., performance) should be adequately analyzed and addressed. Directed acyclic graph-based DLs have been proposed to tackle the performance and scalability issues by design. The first among them, IOTA, has shown promising signs in addressing the preceding issues. IOTA is an open source DL designed for the Internet of Things. It uses a directed acyclic graph to store transactions on its ledger, to achieve a potentially higher scalability over blockchain-based DLs. However, due to the uncertainty and centralization of the deployed consensus, the current IOTA implementation exposes some performance issues, making it less performant than the initial design. In this article, we first extend an existing simulator to support realistic IOTA simulations and investigate the impact of different design parameters on IOTA’s performance. Then, we propose a layered model to help the users of IOTA determine the optimal waiting time to resend the previously submitted but not yet confirmed transaction. Our findings reveal the impact of the transaction arrival rate, tip selection algorithms, weighted tip selection algorithm randomness, and network delay on the throughput. Using the proposed layered model, we shed some light on the distribution of the confirmed transactions. The distribution is leveraged to calculate the optimal time for resending an unconfirmed transaction to the DL. The performance analysis results can be used by both system designers and users to support their decision making.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".