## 4 Results
### DLT Performance  
This section analyzes the transaction time process in the DLT system. The first analysis is related to the DLT transaction process, which can be seen in Table 6. The transaction performance from Table 6 demonstrates that the system consistently maintains a TPS of approximately 166.67 except when processing 4000 transactions, where the TPS slightlydrops to 160. Despite variations in transaction volume, the TPS remains relatively stable. In contrast, the latency exhibits a gradual increase as the number of transactions grows, going from 6 milliseconds for 1000 transactions to 62 milliseconds for 10,000 transactions. This implies that as the system handles more transactions, it experiences a modest increase in latency.  
The average TPS of 164.53 suggests that the system exhibits consistent performance in terms of transaction processing speed. Additionally, the system effectively manages CPU and memory resources. An interesting finding is the stability of the TPS, indicating that the system can handle transaction volumes ranging from 1000 to 10,000 with relatively little impact on TPS. However, the gradual increase in latency with a higher number of transactions is noteworthy and should be considered when optimizing the system for lower latency requirements. Overall, the system demonstrates robust and efficient performance, which is crucial for applications requiring predictable and stable TPS.  
The next analysis measures the resource cost of the DLT system and the training process in the proposed system. The first analysis is related to resource costs from the DLT system. The results in Tables 7 and 8 show CPU and memory consumption from Truffle and IPFS.  
The result reveals that both Truffle and IPFS consume CPU resources efficiently. CPU utilization for Truffle remains below 4% throughout the experiments, suggesting that the system efficiently handles transaction processing without significant strain on the CPU. The memory consumption for Truffle remains consistently around 217 MB, indicating stable memory usage. In the case of IPFS, the CPU consumption is higher, reaching approximately 19% when processing 10,000 transactions. This could be attributed to the resource-intensive  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Transactions** & **Latency (s)** & **Transactions per Second** \\ \hline
1000 & 6 & 166.67 \\
2000 & 12 & 166.67 \\
3000 & 18 & 166.67 \\
4000 & 25 & 160 \\
5000 & 30 & 166.67 \\
6000 & 36 & 166.67 \\
7000 & 42 & 166.67 \\
8000 & 49 & 163.26 \\
9000 & 56 & 160.71 \\
10,000 & 62 & 161.29 \\ \hline Average & 33.6 & 164.52 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Latency and TPS from DLT.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Transactions** & **CPU (\%)** & **RAM (Mb)** \\ \hline
1000 & 3.26 & 217.39 \\
2000 & 3.42 & 217.42 \\
3000 & 2.98 & 217.39 \\
4000 & 2.84 & 217.37 \\
5000 & 2.82 & 217.36 \\
6000 & 3.75 & 217.71 \\
7000 & 2.9 & 217.38 \\
8000 & 2.85 & 217.4 \\
9000 & 3.43 & 217.57 \\
10,000 & 2.85 & 217.18 \\ \hline Average & 3.11 & 217.41 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: CPU and memory from Truffle.  
nature of IPFS. Memory consumption for IPFS hovers around 145 MB, showcasing relatively stable memory usage throughout the experiments.