Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryScaling2020Design paperCorpus record

OHIE: Blockchain Scaling Made Simple

OHIE. Haifeng Yu, Ivica Nikolić, Ruomu Hou, Prateek Saxena and Joseph Bonneau.

Run many parallel Nakamoto chains. A block is assigned to a chain by its hash. The safety argument stays close to bitcoin's, and the throughput is the sum.

A reading of the public paper. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not a claim about any later network.

A parallel-chain pitch should say how a miner is prevented from extending only the chain that pays them.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
3

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • arXiv:1811.12628https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12628
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    High-throughput designs were inventing new fork choices. OHIE asks whether parallel bitcoin chains, with a careful assignment of blocks, already scale.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The proposal

    Run many parallel Nakamoto chains. A block is assigned to a chain by its hash. The safety argument stays close to bitcoin's, and the throughput is the sum.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    Parallel chains are not shards with their own trust assumptions.

    Assignment by the hash is what stops a miner from pouring every block into one chain.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    The bound

    The paper's throughput is a model.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    High-throughput designs were inventing new fork choices. OHIE asks whether parallel bitcoin chains, with a careful assignment of blocks, already scale.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper's throughput is a model.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Do the chains share security or only share a brand?

  2. 02 The proposal

    Observation

    What the study says

    Run many parallel Nakamoto chains. A block is assigned to a chain by its hash. The safety argument stays close to bitcoin's, and the throughput is the sum.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper's throughput is a model.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    How is a block assigned to a chain?

  3. 03 Parallel chains are not shards with their own trust assumptions.

    Observation

    What the study says

    Assignment by the hash is what stops a miner from pouring every block into one chain.

    Model

    What has to hold

    It does not remove the underlying proof-of-work assumption.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    How is a block assigned to a chain?

  4. 04 The bound

    Observation

    What the study says

    The paper's throughput is a model.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper's throughput is a model.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    How is a block assigned to a chain?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Mine a block.
  2. 02The hash picks which parallel chain it extends.
  3. 03A client confirms a transaction when its chain has the depth the analysis requires.
  4. 04Do the chains share security or only share a brand?

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the paper is for

    The cut

    A parallel-chain pitch should say how a miner is prevented from extending only the chain that pays them.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

  2. What happened after

    The cut

    Later parallel-chain designs cite OHIE as the simple composition argument.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The paper's throughput is a model.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    It is not a sharded execution environment. Contracts that share state are a different problem.

  • Cryptography · Not re-measured

    It does not remove the underlying proof-of-work assumption.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

Later parallel-chain designs cite OHIE as the simple composition argument.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

High-throughput designs were inventing new fork choices. OHIE asks whether parallel bitcoin chains, with a careful assignment of blocks, already scale.

What the design proposes

  • Parallel chains are not shards with their own trust assumptions.
  • Assignment by the hash is what stops a miner from pouring every block into one chain.
  • Confirmation still follows from the underlying chain rule.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Mine a block.
  • The hash picks which parallel chain it extends.
  • A client confirms a transaction when its chain has the depth the analysis requires.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • The paper's throughput is a model.
  • It is not a sharded execution environment. Contracts that share state are a different problem.
  • It does not remove the underlying proof-of-work assumption.

Why the desk still reads it

A parallel-chain pitch should say how a miner is prevented from extending only the chain that pays them.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Parallel chains
Several Nakamoto chains whose security composes.
Assignment
The rule that places a new block onto one of those chains.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Protocols

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.