MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375869918 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.03567

Flash: An Asynchronous Payment System with Good-Case Linear Communication Complexity

2023· preprint· en· W4375869918 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew Lewis-Pye, Oded Naor, Ehud Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli Foundation
KeywordsPaymentComputer scienceAsynchronous communicationMatching (statistics)Computer networkComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the original purpose of blockchains was to realize a payment system, it has been shown that, in fact, such systems do not require consensus and can be implemented deterministically in asynchronous networks. State-of-the-art payment systems employ Reliable Broadcast to disseminate payments and prevent double spending, which entails O(n^2) communication complexity per payment even if Byzantine behavior is scarce or non-existent. Here we present Flash, the first payment system to achieve $O(n)$ communication complexity per payment in the good case and $O(n^2)$ complexity in the worst-case, matching the lower bound. This is made possible by sidestepping Reliable Broadcast and instead using the blocklace -- a DAG-like partially-ordered generalization of the blockchain -- for the tasks of recording transaction dependencies, block dissemination, and equivocation exclusion, which in turn prevents doublespending. Flash has two variants: for high congestion when multiple blocks that contain multiple payments are issued concurrently; and for low congestion when payments are infrequent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207