Bibliographic record
Abstract
Payment channel networks have great potential to scale cryptocurrency payment systems. However, their scalability power is limited as payments occasionally fail in these networks due to various factors. In this work, we study these factors and analyze their imposing limitations. To this end, we propose a model where a payment channel network is viewed as a compression method. In this model, the compression rate is defined as the ratio of the total number of payments entering the network to the total number of transactions that are placed on the blockchain to handle failed payments or (re)open channels. We analyze the compression rate and its upper limit, referred to as compression capacity, for various payment models, channel-reopening strategies, and network topologies. For networks with a tree topology, we show that the compression rate is inversely proportional to the average path length traversed by payments. For general networks, we show that if payment rates are even slightly asymmetric and channels are not reopened regularly, a constant fraction of payments will always fail regardless of the number of channels, the topology of the network, the routing algorithm used and the amount of allocated funds in the network. We also examine the impact of routing and channel rebalancing on the network’s compression rate. We show that rebalancing and strategic routing can enhance the compression rate in payment channel networks where channels may be reopened, differing from the established literature on credit networks, which suggests these factors do not have an effect.
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 | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".