Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 128 references

Remora: Scale-out Deterministic Execution for Smart Contracts

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A scale-out execution engine called Remora can match consensus throughput (250k TPS) while preserving strict determinism, by splitting stateless and stateful work and overlapping both with consensus.

desk verdict The 3× headline is an internal ablation, not a SOTA comparison; the real Hermes win is ~1.1×, yet the asymmetric design and determinism machinery make this a substantive paper worth serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02817 v2 pith:WRQ4LOHN submitted 2026-07-02 cs.DC cs.DB

Zhengqing Liu , Alberto Sonnino , Igor Zablotchi , Eleftherios Kokoris Kogias , Marios Kogias This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.DB
keywords blockchainexecutiondeterminismscale-outsmartcontractsobjectversioninglease-basedownershipconsensuswindowsubgraph-firstscheduling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to prove that the execution layer of a blockchain can be scaled out across a cluster of machines inside a single validator—without sacrificing the strict order set by consensus. Its design, Remora, centralizes all scheduling in one Coordinator and spreads execution across Worker nodes, using per-object version numbers and exclusive leases to guarantee that the distributed run still looks exactly like sequential execution in consensus order. It also exploits two blockchain-specific facts: smart-contract compute splits into a stateless verification part and a stateful business-logic part, and the several-hundred-millisecond consensus window is predictable enough to hide the stateless part and the scheduling decision inside it. If this works, a validator could match modern consensus throughput (roughly 300k TPS) with commodity servers, elastically scaling up or down as load changes, instead of being stuck at tens of thousands of TPS on a single machine.

What carries the argument

The load-carrying mechanism is the per-object version stream with single consumption. For each key, the Coordinator issues a strictly increasing version number in consensus order; every transaction that touches the key is assigned exactly one input version, and only the transaction that is assigned version i+1 may read the value written as version i. Complementing it is the lease-based ownership model: at any instant a key belongs to exactly one Worker (or the Coordinator), so state has a unique location and transfers are explicit, authorized lease moves. Around these two, Remora wraps an asymmetric coordinator/worker topology and Subgraph-First Scheduling (SFS), which groups transactions wh

What would settle it

Take a workload of contracts that read a storage slot and then read the slot it points to (pointer-chasing access). Declare a conservative superset as the read set, run it on Remora and on a single-node deterministic executor, and measure throughput as the over-approximation factor grows from 1x to, say, 3x. If the scale-out gain is lost or correctness breaks at a modest over-approximation ratio, the claim that Remora scales deterministically to consensus speed on realistic smart contracts is settled false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that strict determinism in a distributed execution engine can be enforced by a single serialization point plus local readiness: the Coordinator increments a per-object counter for every transaction in the consensus-ordered batch, so each read or write is pinned to a unique version that is consumed exactly once. A Worker may execute a transaction only when all of its assigned versions are available—locally produced or fetched from the current lease holder. Because versions follow the consensus order, parallel execution on different Workers is automatically serializable with respect to that order, no locks or re-execution needed. The paper further claims that the s

Load-bearing premise

Every transaction must supply its full read and write sets before it runs, so contracts that discover which state they need only while executing cannot be handled directly; if most real workloads cannot provide accurate access sets, Remora's version-assignment and scheduling machinery does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Execution throughput of a single validator scales almost linearly with worker count until the Coordinator becomes the bottleneck (around 340k TPS in this paper), matching the throughput of modern consensus protocols.
  • Because stateless verification is off the critical path during consensus, increasingly expensive authentication (multi-signatures, zkLogin, post-quantum schemes) can be absorbed without increasing transaction latency.
  • The system can elastically add and remove workers without an explicit rebalancing phase, since leases migrate lazily with normal dispatch; it can also recover from a crashed worker in seconds by replaying the committed log from the latest snapshot.
  • Strict determinism is preserved even with dynamic object migration and distributed execution, so the design can be adopted without changing the consensus protocol or the trust model of a blockchain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If a workload contains a material share of contracts whose access sets are unknowable in advance, the engine must be fed conservative over-approximations; those over-approximations serialize transactions that would otherwise be independent, so Remora's scale-out advantage is workload-dependent, and the paper's estimate of 'most transactional workloads' needs empirical confirmation on current mainn
  • A natural relaxation would be to allow multiple consumers of a read-only version when the object is known hot-but-readonly, which the paper forgoes for simplicity of garbage collection; doing so could reclaim read-parallelism for browse-heavy decentralized applications without touching the write-order invariant.
  • The Coordinator is a single point of failure inside the validator (acknowledged in the paper); making it an internally replicated state machine would turn Remora into a model for validators that want to survive coordinator crashes without losing liveness.
  • The consensus-window trick could be pushed further: since only state-free speculation is safe, the scheduler could emit a signed 'schedule plan' pre-consensus and verify it post-consensus, turning scheduling cost into a one-time verification cost and freeing the post-consensus path completely.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. Remora proposes a scale-out deterministic execution engine for a single blockchain validator. It uses an asymmetric architecture: a centralized Coordinator handles sequencing, version assignment, scheduling, and dispatch, while a pool of Workers execute transactions. Determinism is enforced through per-object versioning and lease-based ownership, with each transaction's read/write set declared upfront. Remora separates stateless from stateful execution, performs stateless execution and stateful scheduling during the consensus window, and introduces subgraph-first scheduling (SFS) that balances locality and load. The appendix gives formal proofs of consensus-ordered serializability, cross-validator determinism, and liveness under assumptions A1-A9. The evaluation on a 16-node cluster with YCSB, TPC-C, and Ethereum traces reports up to 3x throughput improvement over state-of-the-art deterministic execution schemes, up to 250k TPS, and up to 5ms latency reduction.

Significance. The paper has real strengths: the asymmetric architecture is well motivated against Calvin-style symmetric designs; the versioning/lease model yields a clean determinism argument; the appendix proof is internally coherent under the stated assumptions; and the evaluation uses a real cluster, standard benchmarks, and real-world traces, including failure-recovery and elasticity experiments. If the headline performance claims were supported by the reported experiments, Remora would be a meaningful step toward removing execution as the scalability bottleneck in modular blockchains. However, the central performance claims as written are not backed by the data: the 3x figure is an internal ablation, the 250k TPS figure is a zero-service-time dispatch stress test, and the SOTA comparison is with a system the paper itself labels non-deterministic. The underlying design may still be valuable, but the paper must be revised to align its claims with its measurements.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §6.3/Fig. 5; §6.4/Fig. 6] The 'up to 3x throughput improvement compared to state-of-the-art deterministic execution schemes' headline is not supported by any external comparison. The only 3x result is in §6.4/Fig. 6, where Coordinator-based Sep is compared against the paper's own 'No Separation' baseline. In the actual SOTA comparison in §6.3/Fig. 5, SFS exceeds Hermes by only about 7-10% (e.g., YCSB 5 objects, alpha=0.9: 28% vs 17% over round-robin), and even the full Remora bar reaches at most about 151% over round-robin versus Hermes's 17-21%, i.e., roughly 2x rather than 3x. The abstract, introduction, and conclusion should either be revised to report the measured SOTA comparison or a direct full-Remora-vs-Hermes experiment should be added.
  2. [Abstract; §6.9/Fig. 11] The '250k TPS' claim is presented as sustained system throughput, but §6.9 explicitly says it uses 'zero service time' to isolate Coordinator dispatching overhead. The abstract and conclusion present this as 'scales up to 250k TPS, matching modern consensus performance.' With realistic service times, end-to-end throughput is lower, as shown in Figs. 4-6. This claim should be reworded to 'Coordinator dispatch capacity' or supported by an end-to-end measurement at 250k TPS.
  3. [§1; §6.3] Hermes is called a 'state-of-the-art deterministic execution scheme' in the introduction and abstract, but §6.3 states that Hermes 'violates strict determinism, since it relies on transaction reordering.' Since strict determinism is the paper's central correctness requirement, using Hermes as the headline SOTA baseline is misleading. The strictly deterministic variant Hermes (NR) is the appropriate comparison target; against it, the reported gains are about 11-19% for other baselines and up to 28% for SFS, not 3x. Please relabel Hermes and make Hermes (NR) the primary external comparison, or clearly separate the non-deterministic comparison.
  4. [§7; §4.2] The entire design—version assignment (§A.6), SFS scheduling (Algorithm 1), and lease transfers—requires each transaction's read/write set to be known before stateful execution. §7 acknowledges that Remora 'does not directly support contracts whose accessed state is discovered only during execution.' This is a load-bearing limitation on the generality of the 'smart contract execution engine' claim. The paper should make this scope restriction prominent in the abstract and position the contribution as targeting execution environments with declared or pre-computable access sets, not all smart-contract workloads.
  5. [§6.5/Fig. 7] The 'reduces latency by up to 5ms' claim in the abstract and introduction is based on an internal ablation: pre-consensus vs post-consensus stateless execution (Fig. 7), under a 300ms mock consensus delay. The 2-5ms reduction is not compared against any external system and is small relative to the 300ms consensus window. This should be presented as a component-level latency improvement, not an end-to-end advantage over state-of-the-art systems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5] Including the full 'Remora' bar in the scheduling-policy comparison is confusing, since it combines SFS with stateless-stateful separation and consensus-window execution. The text says 'We also include Remora' but the caption calls the figure a comparison of policies; please clarify which bars are policy-only and which include the full system.
  2. [Appendix E.1, Lemma 8] Typo: 'Version value uniqeness' should be 'Version value uniqueness'.
  3. [§6.2] The SymArch baseline description says sequencing is excluded from both systems, but it is not clear whether SymArch also runs the same version-assignment and scheduling logic as Remora on every worker. Please state explicitly what scheduling cost SymArch pays per node.
  4. [§6.5] The text says scheduling costs about 4ms per batch, but Fig. 7's latency plots do not show the absolute values for the Pre-Sched condition clearly. Adding the numeric P50/P90 values to the text or figure would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§5] The implementation is described as 13k LoC of Rust, but no artifact URL or repository is provided. Since the paper makes strong empirical claims, a reproducibility artifact would be valuable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: correctness proofs are assumption-explicit and performance results are empirical measurements.

full rationale

Remora's correctness argument is not circular. Theorem 1 (consensus-ordered serializability) is proved from explicit assumptions A1–A3 plus a version-assignment rule (§A.6) that assigns versions in consensus order and an execution rule (§A.9) that consumes exactly those versions; the proof does not assume the target result. Theorem 2 follows from the determinism assumption plus serializability, and Theorem 3 is derived from scheduler fairness and eventual delivery. Performance claims are empirical measurements rather than fitted predictions: §6.4's "up to 3× improvement" is an internal ablation (Coordinator-based separation vs. the paper's own 'No Separation' baseline) rather than a comparison against an external deterministic system, and §6.9's 250k TPS is a zero-service-time Coordinator stress test intended to isolate dispatch overhead. These are reporting/comparison issues, not circular reductions: no quantity is fit to the target metric, and the SFS weights (Algorithm 1, line 7: 0.5*R_i + 0.5*L_i) are hand-set heuristics rather than fitted constants. Self-citations (e.g., Mysticeti/Sui for the consensus window and the 98.66% direct-commit observation) support empirical premises and are not used as uniqueness theorems or to forbid alternative designs. §7 explicitly acknowledges the read/write-set restriction, which is a scope limitation for real workloads but is not a circular step in the derivation. Overall, the derivation is self-contained given its stated assumptions, so the circularity burden is low and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design rests on standard blockchain/consensus assumptions plus several domain-specific ones. The most consequential are static read/write set declarations and the availability of the Coordinator. No new physical entities are introduced; the validation token is an internal abstraction, not a new independently-testable entity.

free parameters (3)
  • SFS locality/load weights = 0.5 / 0.5
    Algorithm 1 line 7: equal weighting of locality and load is chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis; it directly shapes scheduling and measured throughput.
  • Synthetic stateless/stateful service times = 0.5 ms / 0.5 ms; 2 ms stateless in §6.5
    §6.1: YCSB transactions use synthetic spinning to emulate smart contract execution. Headline throughput and latency numbers depend on these assumptions.
  • Mock consensus delay = 300 ms
    §6.1: the consensus module adds a constant 300 ms delay, matching Mysticeti. The reported latency hiding and pre-consensus scheduling benefits scale with this parameter.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption A1: The consensus layer provides a total order with safety and eventual liveness.
    Appendix B; standard for blockchain execution layers, but Remora inherits all consensus guarantees unchanged.
  • domain assumption A2: Stateless and stateful execution are deterministic given their inputs.
    Appendix B; required for the determinism proof (Theorem 2) and cross-validator equivalence.
  • domain assumption A3: Validation tokens are unforgeable, bound to inputs, and verifiable by the stateful step.
    Appendix B; needed so stateless execution can be safely decoupled from stateful execution.
  • domain assumption A4: Messages are eventually delivered despite delay, reordering, or duplication.
    Appendix B; standard network assumption for liveness proofs.
  • domain assumption A6: Partial synchrony with an eventually perfect failure detector.
    Appendix B; used to guarantee that crashed workers are eventually detected for recovery.
  • domain assumption A7: Workers are crash-stop and do not act Byzantine.
    Appendix B; Remora scales within a single trust domain, so no intra-validator Byzantine behavior is modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper A9: The Coordinator remains available and its storage persists across worker failures; it is a single point of failure.
    Appendix B; this is a strong availability assumption. The paper does not provide Coordinator fault tolerance, only crash recovery for workers.
  • domain assumption Read/write sets are declared upfront for every transaction.
    §4.2 and §7; the version assignment and SFS scheduling require static R/W sets. This excludes contracts that discover state during execution.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposal Visibility: the Coordinator may observe proposed blocks before commitment.
    Appendix B; enables pre-consensus stateless execution and scheduling, but is not required for correctness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Remora: Scale-out Deterministic Execution for Smart Contracts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WRQ4LOHN

@misc{pith2026260702817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Remora: Scale-out Deterministic Execution for Smart Contracts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WRQ4LOHN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02817}
}
read the original abstract

Modern blockchains rely on a modular architecture that decouples consensus from execution. Recent advances in consensus algorithms have shifted the bottleneck to the execution layer, which must deterministically follow the consensus order and handle increasingly complex, compute-intensive smart contracts. We identify that single-node validators cannot keep up, motivating the need for a scale-out design. We design Remora, a scale-out smart contract execution engine. Remora adopts an efficient asymmetric architecture with centralized transaction dispatching and distributed execution, and depends on an object versioning scheme with a strict ownership model to guarantee deterministic scale-out execution. Remora achieves up to 3x throughput improvement compared to state-of-the-art deterministic execution schemes, scales up to 250k TPS, matching modern consensus performance, and reduces latency by up to 5ms. We also show that Remora elastically adapts to bursty workloads and dynamic access patterns using real-world traces. Remora's main performance benefits come from a novel stateless-stateful separation during smart contract execution, which overlaps the execution of state-independent tasks with consensus, and a new locality-aware and load-balanced scheduling scheme.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02817 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Validator architecture in modern blockchains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Execution breakdown of common smart contracts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Remora Architecture. Remora is a single validator inheriting Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) from the consensus layer (a), and internally scales out execution (b) with a centralized Coordinator and a pool of Workers under Crash Fault Tolerance (CFT). algorithms; (iv) enable seamless elasticity by dynamically adapting to load without upfront costs; (v) tolerate execution node failures within a trusted validator. We p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison with other work using symmetric architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison with other policies. Percentage denotes the improvement over round-robin policy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Benefits of consensus window. Pre-Sep denotes pre￾consensus stateless execution, while Post-Sep denotes post-consensus stateless execution; Pre-Sched denotes pre-consensus scheduling, while Post-Sched denotes post-consensus scheduling. the stateless dominates. These re…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Failure recovery. Worker 1 failed and Worker 3 is spawned. 50 75 kTPS Spawn W3 Retire W3 Overall Throughput Input Load 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (seconds) 300 400 Latency (ms) Worker 1 Worker 2 Worker 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    TPC-C Benchmark

    2023. TPC-C Benchmark. https://www.tpc.org/tpcc/. Accessed: December 2, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Michael Abebe, Brad Glasbergen, and Khuzaima Daudjee. 2020. MorphoSys: automatic physical design metamorphosis for distributed database systems. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment13, 13 (2020), 3573–3587

    2020

  3. [3]

    Algorand Foundation. 2025. Leading on post-quantum technology. https: //algorand.co/technology/post-quantum

    2025

  4. [4]

    Mohammad Javad Amiri, Divyakant Agrawal, and Amr El Abbadi. 2019. Par- blockchain: Leveraging transaction parallelism in permissioned blockchain systems. In2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 1337–1347

    2019

  5. [5]

    Mohammad Javad Amiri, Divyakant Agrawal, and Amr El Abbadi. 2021. Sharper: Sharding permissioned blockchains over network clusters. InProceedings of the 2021 international conference on management of data. 76–88

    2021

  6. [6]

    Parwat Singh Anjana, Matin Amini, Rohit Kapoor, Rahul Parmar, Raghavendra Ramesh, Srivatsan Ravi, and Joshua Tobkin. 2025. Efficient Parallel Execution of Blockchain Transactions Leveraging Conflict Specifications. In7th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2025). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz- Zentrum für Informatik, 29–1

    2025

  7. [7]

    Balaji Arun, Zekun Li, Florian Suri-Payer, Sourav Das, and Alexander Spiegel- man. 2025. Shoal++: High Throughput{DAG}{ BFT} Can Be Fast and Robust!. In22nd USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 25). 813–826

    2025

  8. [8]

    Kushal Babel, Andrey Chursin, George Danezis, Anastasios Kichidis, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Arun Koshy, Alberto Sonnino, and Mingwei Tian. 2023. Mys- ticeti: Reaching the limits of latency with uncertified dags.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14821(2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    Foteini Baldimtsi, Konstantinos Kryptos Chalkias, Yan Ji, Jonas Lindstrøm, Deepak Maram, Ben Riva, Arnab Roy, Mahdi Sedaghat, and Joy Wang. 2024. zklogin: Privacy-preserving blockchain authentication with existing creden- tials. InProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conferen...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Dvir David Biton, Roy Friedman, and Yaron Hay. 2025. Ethereum Conflicts Graphed. arXiv:2507.20196 [cs.DC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.20196

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sam Blackshear, Andrey Chursin, George Danezis, Anastasios Kichidis, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Xun Li, Mark Logan, Ashok Menon, Todd Nowacki, Alberto Sonnino, Brandon Williams, and Lu Zhang. 2024. Sui Lutris: A Blockchain Combining Broadcast and Consensus. InProceedings of the ...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Dan Boneh, Ben Lynn, and Hovav Shacham. 2004. Short signatures from the Weil pairing.Journal of cryptology17, 4 (2004), 297–319

    2004

  5. [13]

    Jacqueline Brendel, Cas Cremers, Dennis Jackson, and Mang Zhao. 2021. The provable security of ed25519: theory and practice. In2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1659–1676

    2021

  6. [14]

    Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. 1999. Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. InOSDI. USENIX Association, 173–186

    1999

  7. [15]

    Kostas Kryptos Chalkias, Jonas Lindstrøm, Deepak Maram, Ben Riva, Arnab Roy, Alberto Sonnino, and Joy Wang. 2024. Fastcrypto: Pioneering cryptography via continuous benchmarking. InCompanion of the 15th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering. 227–234

    2024

  8. [16]

    Chen Chen, Xingbo Wu, Wenshao Zhong, and Jakob Eriksson. 2024. Fast Abort- Freedom for Deterministic Transactions. In2024 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). IEEE, 692–704

    2024

  9. [17]

    Wuhui Chen, Ding Xia, Zhongteng Cai, Hong-Ning Dai, Jianting Zhang, Zicong Hong, Junyuan Liang, and Zibin Zheng. 2024. Porygon: Scaling blockchain via 3d parallelism. In2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1944–1957

    2024

  10. [18]

    Yang Chen, Zhongxin Guo, Runhuai Li, Shuo Chen, Lidong Zhou, Yajin Zhou, and Xian Zhang. 2021. Forerunner: Constraint-based speculative transaction execution for ethereum. InProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 28th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 570–587

    2021

  11. [19]

    Zhihao Chen, Xiaodong Qi, Xiaofan Du, Zhao Zhang, and Cheqing Jin. 2021. Peep: A parallel execution engine for permissioned blockchain systems. InIn- ternational Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Springer, 341–357

    2021

  12. [20]

    Zhihao Chen, Tianji Yang, Yixiao Zheng, Zhao Zhang, Cheqing Jin, and Aoy- ing Zhou. 2024. Spectrum: Speedy and strictly-deterministic smart contract transactions for blockchain ledgers.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment17, 10 (2024), 2541–2554

    2024

  13. [21]

    Shir Cohen, Guy Goren, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Alberto Sonnino, and Alexan- der Spiegelman. 2022. Proof of Availability & Retrieval in a Modular Blockchain Architecture. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2022/455. https://eprint.iacr.or g/2022/455

    2022

  14. [22]

    Tokio Contributors. [n.d.]. Notify in tokio::sync. Rust crate documentation on docs.rs. https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/sync/struct.Notify.html Accessed: 2025-12-31

    2025

  15. [23]

    Brian F Cooper, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Russell Sears. 2010. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSB. InProceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on Cloud computing. 143–154

    2010

  16. [24]

    Carlo Curino, Evan Philip Charles Jones, Yang Zhang, and Samuel R Mad- den. 2010. Schism: a workload-driven approach to database replication and partitioning. (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Hung Dang, Tien Tuan Anh Dinh, Dumitrel Loghin, Ee-Chien Chang, Qian Lin, and Beng Chin Ooi. 2019. Towards scaling blockchain systems via sharding. In Proceedings of the 2019 international conference on management of data. 123–140

    2019

  18. [26]

    DFINITY Foundation. 2024. The Next Step for DeAI: On-Chain Inference Enabling Face Recognition. https://medium.com/dfinity/the-next-step-for- deai-on-chain-inference-enabling-face-recognition-589183203fc2. DFINITY Blog

    2024

  19. [27]

    Tamer Eldeeb, Xincheng Xie, Philip A Bernstein, Asaf Cidon, and Junfeng Yang. 2023. Chardonnay: Fast and general datacenter transactions for {On- Disk} databases. In17th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 23). 343–360

    2023

  20. [28]

    2025.Ethereum roadmap

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Ethereum roadmap. https://ethereum.org/roadmap/ Accessed: 2026-01-14

    2025

  21. [29]

    Ethereum.org. 2026. Glamsterdam. https://ethereum.org/roadmap/glamsterd am/#bals Page last updated: April 13, 2026. Accessed: May 22, 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    Etherscan. [n.d.]. Ethereum Active Addresses Chart. Etherscan. https://ethers can.io/chart/active-address Accessed: 2025-12-31

    2025

  23. [31]

    François Ezard, Can Umut Ileri, and Jérémie Decouchant. 2025. NEMO: Faster Parallel Execution for Highly Contended Blockchain Workloads. In2025 7th Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS). IEEE, 1–5

    2025

  24. [32]

    Jose M Faleiro and Daniel J Abadi. 2015. Rethinking serializable multiversion concurrency control.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment8, 11 (2015), 1190– 1201

    2015

  25. [33]

    Jose M Faleiro, Daniel J Abadi, and Joseph M Hellerstein. 2017. High perfor- mance transactions via early write visibility.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 10, 5 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    FastCrypto. 2025. FastCrypto Benchmark. https://mystenlabs.github.io/fastcry pto/benchmarks/criterion/reports/BN254%20Verification/Groth16%20verify 13 %20with%20processed%20vk/8/index.html. Accessed: July 22, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Péter Garamvölgyi, Yuxi Liu, Dong Zhou, Fan Long, and Ming Wu. 2022. Uti- lizing parallelism in smart contracts on decentralized blockchains by taming application-inherent conflicts. InProceedings of the 44th international conference on software engineering. 2315–2326

    2022

  28. [36]

    Rati Gelashvili, Alexander Spiegelman, Zhuolun Xiang, George Danezis, Zekun Li, Dahlia Malkhi, Yu Xia, and Runtian Zhou. 2023. Block-STM: Scaling Blockchain Execution by Turning Ordering Curse to a Performance Blessing. InPPoPP. ACM, 232–244

    2023

  29. [37]

    Sara Gherghelas. 2024. DappRadar Games Report – 2023 Overview. https: //dappradar.com/blog/dappradar-games-report-2023-overview. DappRadar× BGA Blog

    2024

  30. [38]

    Paul Grau. [n.d.]. Lessons learned from making a Chess game for Ethereum. https://medium.com/@graycoding/lessons-learned-from-making-a-chess- game-for-ethereum-6917c01178b6. Accessed: 2025-09-08

    2025

  31. [39]

    Yaron Hay and Roy Friedman. 2024. Batch-Schedule-Execute: On Optimizing Concurrent Deterministic Scheduling for Blockchains. In2024 43rd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). IEEE, 163–174

    2024

  32. [40]

    Lioba Heimbach, Quentin Kniep, Yann Vonlanthen, and Roger Wattenhofer

  33. [41]

    Jelle Hellings and Mohammad Sadoghi. 2021. Byshard: Sharding in a byzantine environment.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment14, 11 (2021), 2230–2243

    2021

  34. [42]

    Joshua Hildred, Michael Abebe, and Khuzaima Daudjee. 2023. Caerus: Low- Latency Distributed Transactions for Geo-Replicated Systems.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment17, 3 (2023), 469–482

    2023

  35. [43]

    Chuntao Hong, Dong Zhou, Mao Yang, Carbo Kuo, Lintao Zhang, and Lidong Zhou. 2013. KuaFu: Closing the parallelism gap in database replication. In2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1186–1195

    2013

  36. [44]

    Zicong Hong, Song Guo, Enyuan Zhou, Wuhui Chen, Huawei Huang, and Albert Zomaya. 2024. GriDB: Scaling blockchain database via sharding and off-chain cross-shard mechanism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03750(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Chunyue Huang, Shuang Liu, Xinyi Zhang, Wenhao Li, Wei Lu, and Xiaoyong Du. 2025. Chimera: Mitigating Ownership Transfers in Multi-Primary Shared- Storage Cloud-Native Databases.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB) 18, 10 (2025), 3368–3381. https://doi.org/10.14778/374819...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Yibo Huang, Haowei Chen, Newton Ni, Vijay Chidambaram, Dixin Tang, Em- mett Witchel, Zhiting Zhu, and Zhipeng Jia. 2025. Tigon: A distributed database for a CXL pod. In19th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 25), Boston, MA

    2025

  39. [47]

    Yibo Huang, Newton Ni, Vijay Chidambaram, Emmett Witchel, and Dixin Tang. 2025. Pasha: An efficient, scalable database architecture for cxl pods. In Proceedings of the Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Robert Kallman, Hideaki Kimura, Jonathan Natkins, Andrew Pavlo, Alexander Rasin, Stanley Zdonik, Evan PC Jones, Samuel Madden, Michael Stonebraker, Yang Zhang, et al. 2008. H-store: a high-performance, distributed main memory transaction processing system.Proceedings of the VL...

    2008

  41. [49]

    Manos Kapritsos, Yang Wang, Vivien Quema, Allen Clement, Lorenzo Alvisi, and Mike Dahlin. 2012. All about eve:{Execute-Verify} replication for{Multi- Core} servers. In10th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 12). 237–250

    2012

  42. [50]

    Antonios Katsarakis, Yijun Ma, Zhaowei Tan, Andrew Bainbridge, Matthew Balkwill, Aleksandar Dragojevic, Boris Grot, Bozidar Radunovic, and Yongguang Zhang. 2021. Zeus: locality-aware distributed transactions. InProceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Computer Syste...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Quentin Kniep, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Alberto Sonnino, Igor Zablotchi, and Nuda Zhang. 2024. Pilotfish: Distributed transaction execution for lazy blockchains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16292(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Linus Gasser, Nicolas Gailly, Ewa Syta, and Bryan Ford. 2018. Omniledger: A secure, scale-out, decentralized ledger via sharding. In2018 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). IEEE, 583–598

    2018

  45. [53]

    Ramakrishna Kotla and Michael Dahlin. 2004. High throughput Byzantine fault tolerance. InInternational Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, 2004. IEEE, 575–584

    2004

  46. [54]

    Aptos Labs. 2025. Aptos. https://aptoslabs.com/. Accessed: July 22, 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    Aptos Labs. 2025. Aptos Code Repository. https://github.com/AptosLabs/aptos- core. Accessed: July 22, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Cronos Labs. [n.d.]. Cronos. https://cronos.org/. Accessed: 2025-09-05

    2025

  49. [57]

    Mysten Labs. 2025. FastCrypto GitHub Repository. https://github.com/Myste nLabs/fastcrypto. Accessed: July 22, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    Mysten Labs. 2025. Sui. https://sui.io/. Accessed: July 22, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    Mysten Labs. 2025. Sui Code Repository. https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui. Accessed: July 22, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    Solana Labs. 2025. Solana Code Repository. https://github.com/solana- labs/solana. Accessed: July 22, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Ziliang Lai, Chris Liu, and Eric Lo. 2023. When private blockchain meets deterministic database.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data1, 1 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  54. [62]

    Jennifer Lam, Jeffrey Helt, Wyatt Lloyd, and Haonan Lu. 2024. Accelerating Skewed Workloads With Performance Multipliers in the{TurboDB} Distributed Database. In21st USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Imple- mentation (NSDI 24). 1213–1228

    2024

  55. [63]

    Guoliang Li, Wengang Tian, Jinyu Zhang, Ronen Grosman, Zongchao Liu, and Sihao Li. 2024. GaussDB: A Cloud-Native Multi-Primary Database with Compute-Memory-Storage Disaggregation.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 17, 12 (2024), 3786–3798

    2024

  56. [64]

    Jialin Li, Ellis Michael, and Dan RK Ports. 2017. Eris: Coordination-free consis- tent transactions using in-network concurrency control. InProceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 104–120

    2017

  57. [65]

    Jialin Li, Jacob Nelson, Ellis Michael, Xin Jin, and Dan RK Ports. 2020. Pegasus: Tolerating skewed workloads in distributed storage with{In-Network} coher- ence directories. In14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 20). 387–406

    2020

  58. [66]

    Zhuolun Li, Alberto Sonnino, and Philipp Jovanovic. 2023. Performance of eddsa and bls signatures in committee-based consensus. InProceedings of the 5th workshop on Advanced tools, programming languages, and PLatforms for Implementing and Evaluating algorithms for Distributed ...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Haoran Lin, Hang Feng, Yajin Zhou, and Lei Wu. 2025. ParallelEVM: Operation- Level Concurrent Transaction Execution for EVM-Compatible Blockchains. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems. 211–225

    2025

  60. [68]

    Qian Lin, Pengfei Chang, Gang Chen, Beng Chin Ooi, Kian-Lee Tan, and Zhengkui Wang. 2016. Towards a non-2pc transaction management in dis- tributed database systems. InProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data. 1659–1674

    2016

  61. [69]

    Yu-Shan Lin, Ching Tsai, Tz-Yu Lin, Yun-Sheng Chang, and Shan-Hung Wu

  62. [70]

    Yushi Liu, Liwei Yuan, Zhihao Chen, Yekai Yu, Zhao Zhang, Cheqing Jin, and Ying Yan. 2023. ChainDash: An Ad-Hoc Blockchain Data Analytics System. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment16, 12 (2023), 4022–4025

    2023

  63. [71]

    Zhengqing Liu, Musa Unal, Matthew J Parkinson, and Marios Kogias. 2025. DORADD: Deterministic Parallel Execution in the Era of Microsecond-Scale Computing. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGPLAN Annual Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. 282–296

    2025

  64. [72]

    Yuen C Lo and Francesca Medda. 2021. Uniswap and the Emergence of the Decentralized Exchange.Journal of financial market infrastructures10, 2 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  65. [73]

    Yi Lu, Xiangyao Yu, Lei Cao, and Samuel Madden. 2020. Aria: a fast and practical deterministic OLTP database. (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Yi Lu, Xiangyao Yu, Lei Cao, and Samuel Madden. 2021. Epoch-based Commit and Replication in Distributed OLTP Databases.Proc. VLDB Endow.14, 5 (2021), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.14778/3446095.3446098

    2021

  67. [75]

    Bhavana Mehta, Nupur Baghel, Mohammad Javad Amiri, Boon Thau Loo, and Ryan Marcus. 2025. Adaptive Sharding in Untrusted Environments.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data3, 6 (2025), 1–28

    2025

  68. [76]

    George Mitenkov, Igor Kabiljo, Zekun Li, Alexander Spiegelman, Satyanarayana Vusirikala, Zhuolun Xiang, Aleksandar Zlateski, Nuno P Lopes, and Rati Gelashvili. 2024. Deferred objects to enhance smart contract programming with optimistic parallel execution.arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Cuong DT Nguyen, Kevin Chen, Christopher DeCarolis, and Daniel J Abadi

  70. [78]

    Cuong DT Nguyen, Johann K Miller, and Daniel J Abadi. 2023. Detock: High Performance Multi-region Transactions at Scale.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data1, 2 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  71. [79]

    Okta, Inc. 2024. What is Decentralized Identity? https://www.okta.com/blog/id entity-security/what-is-decentralized-identity/. Okta Blog

    2024

  72. [80]

    Thamir Qadah, Suyash Gupta, and Mohammad Sadoghi. 2020. Q-Store: Dis- tributed, Multi-partition Transactions via Queue-oriented Execution and Com- munication.. InEDBT. 73–84

    2020

  73. [81]

    Xiaodong Qi, Zhihao Chen, Haizhen Zhuo, Quanqing Xu, Chengyu Zhu, Zhao Zhang, Cheqing Jin, Aoying Zhou, Ying Yan, and Hui Zhang. 2023. Schain: Scalable concurrency over flexible permissioned blockchain. In2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE...

    2023

  74. [82]

    Dai Qin, Angela Demke Brown, and Ashvin Goel. 2021. Caracal: Contention management with deterministic concurrency control. InProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 28th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 180–194

    2021

  75. [83]

    Kaihua Qin, Stefanos Chaliasos, Liyi Zhou, Benjamin Livshits, Dawn Song, and Arthur Gervais. 2023. The blockchain imitation game. In32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23). 3961–3978. 14

    2023

  76. [84]

    Geoffrey Ramseyer and David Mazières. 2024. Groundhog: Linearly-scalable smart contracting via commutative transaction semantics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03201(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Kun Ren, Dennis Li, and Daniel J Abadi. 2019. Slog: Serializable, low-latency, geo-replicated transactions.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment12, 11 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    risechain. 2025. risechain/pevm: Blazingly fast Parallel EVM. https://github.c om/risechain/pevm. Accessed: 2025-09-05

    2025

  79. [87]

    Donghyeon Ryu and Chanik Park. 2024. Toward High-Performance Blockchain System by Blurring the Line between Ordering and Execution. InSC24: Inter- national Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. IEEE, 1–16

    2024

  80. [88]

    Marco Serafini, Rebecca Taft, Aaron J Elmore, Andrew Pavlo, Ashraf Aboulnaga, and Michael Stonebraker. 2016. Clay: Fine-grained adaptive partitioning for general database schemas.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment10, 4 (2016), 445–456

    2016

  81. [89]

    Zeshun Shi, Cees De Laat, Paola Grosso, and Zhiming Zhao. 2022. Integration of blockchain and auction models: A survey, some applications, and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials25, 1 (2022), 497–537

    2022

  82. [90]

    Solana Foundation. 2026. Transaction Structure. https://solana.com/docs/ core/transactions/transaction-structure. Solana Documentation. Accessed: 2026-05-12

    2026

  83. [91]

    Alexander Spiegelman, Neil Giridharan, Alberto Sonnino, and Lefteris Kokoris- Kogias. 2022. Bullshark: Dag bft protocols made practical. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2705–2718

    2022

  84. [92]

    Yuan Sui, Xiaochun Yang, Bin Wang, Yujie Zhang, and Baihua Zheng. 2025. Wait and See: A Delayed Transactions Partitioning Approach in Deterministic Data- base Systems for Better Performance.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data3, 3 (2025), 1–27

    2025

  85. [93]

    Sui Foundation. 2026. Building Transactions. https://docs.sui.io/develop/transa ctions/ptbs/building-ptb. Sui Documentation. Accessed: 2026-05-12

    2026

  86. [94]

    The Aptos Team. 2025. Validator Deployment and Configuration. https: //aptos.dev/network/nodes/validator-node/node-requirements

    2025

  87. [95]

    The Sui Team. 2025. Validator Deployment and Configuration. https://docs.sui .io/guides/operator/validator/validator-config

    2025

  88. [96]

    The Solana Team. 2025. Validator Deployment and Configuration. https: //docs.solanalabs.com/operations/requirements

    2025

  89. [97]

    The Tokio Team. [n.d.]. Tokio: an asynchronous Rust runtime. https://tokio.rs/. Accessed: 2025-09-08

    2025

  90. [98]

    Justin Thaler. 2025. Quantum computing and blockchains: Matching urgency to actual threats. a16z crypto. https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/quantum- computing-misconceptions-realities-blockchains-planning-migrations/ Accessed 2026-01-13

    2025

  91. [99]

    Alexander Thomson, Thaddeus Diamond, Shu-Chun Weng, Kun Ren, Philip Shao, and Daniel J Abadi. 2012. Calvin: fast distributed transactions for parti- tioned database systems. InProceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. 1–12

    2012

  92. [100]

    Xing Tong, Zheming Ye, Zhao Zhang, Cheqing Jin, and Aoying Zhou. 2024. TELL: Efficient Transaction Execution Protocol Towards Leaderless Consensus. In2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1902–1915

    2024

  93. [101]

    Toni Wahrstätter, Dankrad Feist, Francesco D’Amato, Jochem Brouwer, Ignacio Hagopian, Felipe Selmo, Rahul, and Stefan. 2025. EIP-7928: Block-Level Access Lists. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7928. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, Draft. Accessed: 2026-05-12

    2025

  94. [102]

    Hao Wang, Minghao Pan, and Jiaping Wang. 2025. Crystality: A Programming Model for Smart Contracts on Parallel EVMs. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGPLAN Annual Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. 412–425

    2025

  95. [103]

    Zhipeng Wang, Rui Sun, Elizabeth Lui, Tuo Zhou, Yizhe Wen, and Jiahao Sun

  96. [104]

    Chenyuan Wu, Mohammad Javad Amiri, Jared Asch, Heena Nagda, Qizhen Zhang, and Boon Thau Loo. 2022. FlexChain: an elastic disaggregated blockchain.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment16, 1 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Chenyuan Wu, Mohammad Javad Amiri, Haoyun Qin, Bhavana Mehta, Ryan Marcus, and Boon Thau Loo. 2024. Towards Full Stack Adaptivity in Permis- sioned Blockchains.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment17, 5 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    Chenyuan Wu, Bhavana Mehta, Mohammad Javad Amiri, Ryan Marcus, and Boon Thau Loo. 2023. AdaChain: A Learned Adaptive Blockchain.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment16, 8 (2023), 2033–2046

    2023

  99. [107]

    In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025

    AIArena: A blockchain-based decentralized AI training platform. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. 1375–1379

    2025

  100. [108]

    Cheng Xu, Ce Zhang, Jianliang Xu, and Jian Pei. 2021. SlimChain: Scaling blockchain transactions through off-chain storage and parallel processing.Pro- ceedings of the VLDB Endowment14, 11 (2021), 2314–2326

    2021

  101. [109]

    Jie Xu, Qingyuan Xie, Sen Peng, Cong Wang, and Xiaohua Jia. 2023. Adaptchain: Adaptive scaling blockchain with transaction deduplication.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems34, 6 (2023), 1909–1922

    2023

  102. [110]

    Tianjing Xu, Yongqi Zhong, Yiming Zhang, Ruofan Xiong, Jingjing Zhang, Guangtao Xue, and Shengyun Liu. 2025. Vegeta: Enabling Parallel Smart Con- tract Execution in Leaderless Blockchains. In22nd USENIX Symposium on Net- worked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 25). USEN...

    2025

  103. [111]

    Jiang Xiao, Shijie Zhang, Zhiwei Zhang, Bo Li, Xiaohai Dai, and Hai Jin

  104. [112]

    Maofan Yin, Dahlia Malkhi, Michael K Reiter, Guy Golan Gueta, and Ittai Abraham. 2019. HotStuff: BFT consensus with linearity and responsiveness. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing. 347–356

    2019

  105. [113]

    Dachao Yu, Hao Xu, Lei Zhang, Bin Cao, and Muhammad Ali Imran. 2021. Security analysis of sharding in the blockchain system. In2021 IEEE 32nd Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC). IEEE, 1030–1035

    2021

  106. [114]

    Erfan Zamanian, Julian Shun, Carsten Binnig, and Tim Kraska. 2020. Chiller: Contention-centric transaction execution and data partitioning for modern networks. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 511–526

    2020

  107. [115]

    Jianting Zhang, Zhongtang Luo, Raghavendra Ramesh, and Aniket Kate. 2024. Optimal Sharding for Scalable Blockchains with Deconstructed SMR.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08252(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Zachary Yedidia, Geoffrey Ramseyer, and David Mazières. 2025. Deterministic Client: Enforcing Determinism on Untrusted Machine Code. In19th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 25). 633– 649

    2025

  109. [117]

    Shijie Zhang, Ru Cheng, Xinpeng Liu, Jiang Xiao, Hai Jin, and Bo Li. 2024. Seer: Accelerating Blockchain Transaction Execution by Fine-Grained Branch Prediction.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment18, 3 (2024), 822–835

    2024

  110. [118]

    Shijie Zhang, Jiang Xiao, Enping Wu, Feng Cheng, Bo Li, Wei Wang, and Hai Jin. 2024. Morphdag: A workload-aware elastic dag-based blockchain.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering36, 10 (2024), 5249–5264

    2024

  111. [119]

    Wen Zhang, Scott Shenker, and Irene Zhang. 2020. Persistent state machines for recoverable in-memory storage systems with{NVRam}. In14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 20). 1029– 1046

    2020

  112. [120]

    Yunhao Zhang, Haobin Ni, Soumya Basu, Shir Cohen, Maofan Yin, Lorenzo Alvisi, Robbert van Renesse, Qi Chen, and Lidong Zhou. 2025. Ordered Con- sensus with Equal Opportunity. arXiv:2509.09868 [cs.DC] https://arxiv.org/ab s/2509.09868

    2025 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Qian Zhang, Jingyao Li, Hongyao Zhao, Quanqing Xu, Wei Lu, Jinliang Xiao, Fusheng Han, Chuanhui Yang, and Xiaoyong Du. 2023. Efficient distributed transaction processing in heterogeneous networks.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment16, 6 (2023), 1372–1385

    2023

  114. [122]

    Jianjun Zhao, Haikun Liu, Shuhao Zhang, Haodi Lu, Yancan Mao, Zhuohui Duan, Xiaofei Liao, and Hai Jin. 2025. Towards{High-Performance} Transactional Stateful Serverless Workflows with{Affinity-Aware} Leasing. In2025 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 25). 1535–1551

    2025

  115. [123]

    Xinjing Zhou, Xiangyao Yu, Goetz Graefe, and Michael Stonebraker. 2022. Lotus: scalable multi-partition transactions on single-threaded partitioned databases. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment15, 11 (2022), 2939–2952. 15 APPENDIX A System Summary A.1 Entities A validator inRem...

    2022

  116. [126]

    Yunhao Zhang, Srinath Setty, Qi Chen, Lidong Zhou, and Lorenzo Alvisi. 2020. Byzantine ordered consensus without byzantine oligarchy. In14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 20). 633– 649

    2020

  117. [2021]

    InProceedings of the 2021 Inter- national Conference on Management of Data

    Don’t look back, look into the future: Prescient data partitioning and migration for deterministic database systems. InProceedings of the 2021 Inter- national Conference on Management of Data. 1156–1168

    2021

  118. [2022]

    In2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Comput- ing Systems (ICDCS)

    Nezha: Exploiting concurrency for transaction processing in dag-based blockchains. In2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Comput- ing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 269–279

  119. [2023]

    InInternational conference on financial cryptography and data security

    Defi and nfts hinder blockchain scalability. InInternational conference on financial cryptography and data security. Springer, 291–309

  120. [2025]

    Are Database System Researchers Making Correct Assumptions about Transaction Workloads?Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data3, 3 (2025), 1–26

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.