From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2D3C0171 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 23:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BA686B45 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 23:18:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M31OpyG9-PJi for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 23:18:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:10:18 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from relay70.bu.edu (relay70.bu.edu [128.197.228.170]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D51D86B43 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 23:18:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Envelope-From: maimtiaz@bu.edu Received: from mail-ot1-f69.google.com (mail-ot1-f69.google.com [209.85.210.69]) by relay70.bu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id 00VN82QR004138 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:08:02 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f69.google.com with SMTP id z3so4361362oto.22 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:08:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pkrWs6bTQSZjHNrRsd9iNIPr+CFqGPy4E0OZyus5tD0=; b=VS/0pBPuZeRkb/Xm0gMh0/ELgGtNWJKyeUlZucEZTLY5E8wMqI9aYMDsxSomQYYic3 hrWbdrEww2N+LTPqqptGABIOYCdWRISNqzFRTlVHCLbngESLu09ZhOaSBK4S/AQau/Nz 5r63oaKxXpr2I10ZJOzEXba0TZ1MnnFvo03cLYgn2Uf+4+jdtEC+8eV7YI2eT4nKrolZ 0U6fpyu8U+WbPzlkVwj4tXEO7S/FgKNc1wa/iAWsmAKBTqmzMOZLQm3bVfYcDXu25ifn GzwYijsuZe+UhqB+97mk/cj5KS6mM2WeqqJW4y/opVmvtnHWgh/mv9C74D/v+mFwqxqS 9R/g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU12SJ/Hm6lR5vM5M0xtWoE6Gdf1HVZW9eLdpmbip6rhBmU3VRv UTLHtCRxhLJAL25sg97BIn2cLOHR/DFye+voXEf/1i9kEExJMrAreCPUk/nY/hDfp5ZGoc52aOB bjS+bNvhxl7yK3/DTtyPYYXQXCelGQUMaZZcJQNDb/CdLtiNSBD4fbQ== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2647:: with SMTP id a65mr9357050otb.101.1580512082408; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:08:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzMMMHMwEEYqHq/Y1X42xQhc2liYx5l8Bb33+cU577n02O0eWw+fP7o2uQ7jVV8Zit0KzE5ne0o2TDc8W4oU58= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2647:: with SMTP id a65mr9357029otb.101.1580512082126; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:08:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Anas Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:07:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000380769059d77a5fb" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 22:12:33 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Characterizing orphan transaction in the Bitcoin network X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 23:18:44 -0000 --000000000000380769059d77a5fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, This paper - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.11541.pdf - characterizes orphan transactions in the Bitcoin network and shows that increasing the size of the orphan pool reduces network overhead with almost no additional performance overhead. What are your thoughts? Abstract: > Orphan transactions are those whose parental income-sources are missing at > the time that they are processed. These transactions are not propagated to > other nodes until all of their missing parents are received, and they thus > end up languishing in a local buffer until evicted or their parents are > found. Although there has been little work in the literature on > characterizing the nature and impact of such orphans, it is intuitive that > they may affect throughput on the Bitcoin network. This work thus seeks to > methodically research such effects through a measurement campaign of orphan > transactions on live Bitcoin nodes. Our data show that, surprisingly, > orphan transactions tend to have fewer parents on average than non-orphan > transactions. Moreover, the salient features of their missing parents are a > lower fee and larger size than their non-orphan counterparts, resulting in > a lower transaction fee per byte. Finally, we note that the network > overhead incurred by these orphan transactions can be significant, > exceeding 17% when using the default orphan memory pool size (100 > transactions). However, this overhead can be made negligible, without > significant computational or memory demands, if the pool size is merely > increased to 1000 transactions. Regards, Anas --000000000000380769059d77a5fb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,


Or= phan transactions are those whose parental income-sources are missing at th= e time that they are processed. These transactions are not propagated to ot= her nodes until all of their missing parents are received, and they thus en= d up languishing in a local buffer until evicted or their parents are found= . Although there has been little work in the literature on characterizing t= he nature and impact of such orphans, it is intuitive that they may affect = throughput on the Bitcoin network. This work thus seeks to methodically res= earch such effects through a measurement campaign of orphan transactions on= live Bitcoin nodes. Our data show that, surprisingly, orphan transactions = tend to have fewer parents on average than non-orphan transactions. Moreove= r, the salient features of their missing parents are a lower fee and larger= size than their non-orphan counterparts, resulting in a lower transaction = fee per byte. Finally, we note that the network overhead incurred by these = orphan transactions can be significant, exceeding 17% when using the defaul= t orphan memory pool size (100 transactions). However, this overhead can be= made negligible, without significant computational or memory demands, if t= he pool size is merely increased to 1000 transactions.
<= div>
Regards,Anas --000000000000380769059d77a5fb--