# A Blockchain Network Communication Architecture Based on Information-Centric Networking
## 6 Evaluation
### Broadcast Delay Results  
The block broadcast delay of BLOCK-ICN and the Bitcoin network varied with the change in broadcast coverage, as shown in Figure 9. The horizontal axis represents the broadcast coverage of network blocks, and the vertical axis represents the average broadcast time of a single block. With the network nodes fixed at 16,000, the unicast neighbor node ratio in the ICN blockchain was 1, and the miner position was set as the ICN domain gateway node. From the experimental results, it can be seen that the broadcast time of BLOCK-ICN network at different broadcast coverages was smaller than that of the Bitcoin network. Additionally, as the percentage of ICN nodes in BLOCK-ICN increased, the broadcast time of blocks at different broadcast coverages gradually decreased. From the left graph, it can be observed that the broadcast time for a broadcast coverage of 90-100% was significantly greater than the broadcast time for other stages. Therefore, we took the broadcast time at a broadcast coverage of 90%, which represented the time it takes for blocks to be broadcast to most nodes in the network, as the evaluation indicator. At a broadcast coverage of 90%, the block broadcast time for the Bitcoin network was 5336.0 ms, while for the ICN nodes with a ratio of 25% and 100%, the broadcast times were 1997 ms and 802 ms, respectively. Compared to the Bitcoin network, the BLOCK-ICN network reduced the broadcast time by 62.6% and 84.9% for ICN node ratios of 25% and 100%, respectively. In summary, BLOCK-ICN exhibited a better network broadcast delay performance than the Bitcoin network. To evaluate the broadcast delay optimization of BLOCK-ICN across different network topologies and protocols, we conducted experiments with a fixed network size of 16,000 nodes. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the variation in broadcast coverage over time for ICN node ratios of 1% and 10%, respectively. For a broadcast coverage of 90%, the results indicate that when the ICN node ratio was 1%, BLOCK-ICN achieved a broadcast delay reduction of 24% compared to Bitcoin, 13% compared to the CBR protocol, and 27% compared to Kadcast. These findings suggest that BLOCK-ICN provides significant optimization for both unstructured and structured P2P network topologies, while its improvement over the CBR protocol was relatively limited. The primary reason for this is that, under the same conditions, CBR transmits compressed blocks, reducing the potential for further broadcast delay optimization. Furthermore, when the ICN node ratio increased to 10%, BLOCK-ICN exhibited an even greater improvement across different network topologies and protocols, demonstrating its enhanced effectiveness as the proportion of ICN nodes grew. In the BLOCK-ICN network and bitcoin, the block broadcast delay varied with the broadcast coverage rate at different miner locations, as shown in Figures 12 and 13. Under the conditions where the ICN node ratio was 25% and 100%, respectively, the miner nodes were set as ICN domain gateway nodes, ICN ICN nodes, and overlay P2P nodes, and the changes in broadcast time were compared. From the experimental results, it can be seen that when the miner nodes were in the ICN network, the block broadcast time was significantly lower than the broadcast time of the miner nodes in the P2P network. Specifically, when the broadcast coverage rate was 90%, with an ICN ratio of 25%, the block broadcast time of the ICN ICN nodes as miner nodes was reduced by 72% compared to with the nodes in the bitcoin network at the same location being miner nodes, while the block broadcast  
Figure 10: Block broadcast time of protocols under an ICN proportion of (1%) varied with changes in broadcast coverage. Figure 9: Block broadcast time of BLOCK-ICN and Bitcoin network at different broadcast coverages. time of overlay P2P nodes as miner nodes in BLOCK-ICN network was only reduced by 32.9% compared to the bitcoin network.