Emergent Consensus Simulations

Andrew Stone
Dec 5, 2016 · 4 min read

The Typical Case: 75%/25% split

The Minimum case: 60/40 split

0: 139, 1: 511, 2: 182, 3: 84, 4: 44, 5: 24, 6: 7, 7: 8, 8: 1

A Surprising Result: What if the network is split 50/50?

max fork depth: 4
max orphans: 34
average orphans: 5
X:Y where Y runs had X forks:
{0: 61, 1: 392, 2: 211, 3: 118, 4: 75, 5: 54, 6: 29, 7: 19, 8: 21, 9: 8, 10: 3, 11: 6, 13: 2, 18: 1}

Appendix: Result Data

SPLIT (block height, max blocks, avg blocks):  max fork depth, max orphans, avg orphans, { X:Y where Y runs had X forks }0.500000/0.500000 (1790, 1797, 1674): 4, 34, 5, {0: 61, 1: 392, 2: 211, 3: 118, 4: 75, 5: 54, 6: 29, 7: 19, 8: 21, 9: 8, 10: 3, 11: 6, 13: 2, 18: 1}
0.600000/0.400000 (1816, 1820, 1673): 4, 15, 3, {0: 139, 1: 511, 2: 182, 3: 84, 4: 44, 5: 24, 6: 7, 7: 8, 8: 1}
0.667000/0.333000 (1790, 1792, 1669): 4, 13, 2, {0: 195, 1: 563, 2: 157, 3: 53, 4: 25, 5: 3, 6: 2, 7: 2}
0.750000/0.250000 (1800, 1800, 1670): 4, 8, 2, {0: 334, 1: 559, 2: 81, 3: 22, 4: 3, 6: 1}
0.800000/0.200000 (1799, 1799, 1667): 4, 11, 1, {0: 422, 1: 517, 2: 52, 3: 8, 6: 1}
0.900000/0.100000 (1797, 1797, 1667): 4, 4, 1, {0: 625, 1: 357, 2: 17, 3: 1}
0.950000/0.050000 (1789, 1789, 1669): 3, 3, 1, {0: 829, 1: 169, 2: 2}

Thanks to sickpig

Andrew Stone

Written by

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade