Papers › Groundhog: Linearly-Scalable Smart Contracting via Commutative Transaction Semantics
Groundhog: Linearly-Scalable Smart Contracting via Commutative Transaction Semantics
Geoffrey Ramseyer, David Mazières
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Groundhog is a novel design for a smart contract execution engine based around concurrent execution of blocks of transactions. Unlike prior work, transactions within a block in Groundhog are not ordered relative to one another. Instead, our key design insights are first, to design a set of commutative semantics that lets the Groundhog runtime deterministically resolve concurrent accesses to shared data. Second, some storage accesses (such as withdrawing money from an account) conflict irresolvably; Groundhog therefore enforces validity constraints on persistent storage accesses via a reserve-commit process. These two ideas give Groundhog a set of semantics that, while not as powerful as traditional sequential semantics, are flexible enough to implement a wide variety of important applications, and are strictly more powerful than the semantics used in some production blockchains today. Unlike prior smart contract systems, transactions throughput never suffers from contention between transactions. Using 96 CPU cores, Groundhog can process more than half a million payment transactions per second, whether between 10M accounts or just 2.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections