Category: EOS (EOS)

EOS.IO Transaction Structure – Developer's Log, Stardate 201707.9

Today I would like to take a moment to explain the current structure of an EOS.IO transaction so that developers can better understand the concurrency model. Below is a JSON representation of a transaction that will transfer currency from sam to alice. In this case, currency, sam, and alice are all account names; however, they are used in different ways.

  "refBlockNum": "12",
  "refBlockPrefix": "2792049106",
  "expiration": "2015-05-15T14:29:01",
  "scope": [
  "messages": [
      "code": "currency",
      "type": "transfer",
      "recipients": [
      "authorization": [
          "account": "sam",
          "permission": "active"
      "data": "a34a59dcc8000000c9251a0000000000501a00000000000008454f53000000000568656c6c6f"
  "signatures": []

When serialized to binary with a single signature, this transaction is about 160 bytes in size which is slightly larger than a Steem transfer which is about 120 bytes or a BitShares transfer which is about 94 bytes. Much of the extra size comes from having to explicitly specify recipients, authorization, and scope which collectively add 51 bytes to the message.

TaPoS – Transactions as Proof of Stake

Those of you familiar with Steem & BitShares will recognize the first 3 fields of the transaction; they remain unchanged. These fields are used by TaPoS (Transactions as Proof of Stake) and ensure that this transaction can only be included after the referenced block and before the expiration.


The next field, “scope”, is new to EOS.IO and specifies the range of data that may be read and/or written to. If a message attempts to read or write data outside of scope then the transaction will fail. Transactions can be processed in parallel so long as there is no overlap in their scope.

A key innovation of the EOS.IO software is that scope and code are two entirely separate concepts. You will notice that the currency contract is not referenced in the scope even though we are executing a transfer using the currency contract’s code.


A transaction can have one or more messages that must be applied in order and atomically (all succeed or all fail). In this case there is exactly one message, so lets look closer at the message:


Every message must specify which code it will be executing, in this case the currency contract’s code will be executing resulting in the following method being called:



The type field defines the type of message (and implicitly the format of data). From an object oriented programming perspective you could view type as a method “name” on the “currency” class. In this example the type is “transfer” and hence explains the naming of the method being called:

${namespace}::apply_${code}_${type}( data )

In case the “namespace” is the currency contract; however, this same method apply_currency_transfer may also be called in other namespaces.


In addition to calling currency::apply_currency_transfer(data), the method apply_currency_transfer(data) will also be called for each recipient listed. For example, the following methods would be called sequentially in this order:


The notation account:: specifies the contract which implements the method. alice and sam may choose to not implement this method if they don’t have any special logic to perform when currency::apply_currency_transfer is executed. However, if sam was an exchange, then sam would probably want to process deposits and withdraws when ever a currency transfer is made.

The person who generates the transaction can add any number of recipients (provided they all execute quickly enough). In addition some contracts can require that certain parties be notified. In the case of currency both the sender and receiver are required to be notified. You can see how this is specified in the currency contract.

void apply_currency_transfer() {
   const auto& transfer  = currentMessage<Transfer>();
   requireNotice(, transfer.from );


Each message may require authorization from one or more accounts. In Steem and BitShares the required authorization is implicitly defined based on the message type; however, with EOS.IO the message must explicitly define the authorization that is provided. The EOS.IO system will automatically verify that the transaction has been signed by all of the necessary signatures to grant the specified authorization.

In this case the message is indicating that it must be signed by sam‘s active permission level. The currency code will verify that sam‘s authorization was provided. You can view this check in the example currency contract.

void apply_currency_transfer() {
   const auto& transfer  = currentMessage<Transfer>();
   requireNotice(, transfer.from );
   requireAuth( transfer.from );


Every contract can define it’s own data format. Without the ABI the data can only be interpreted as a hexadecimal data; however, the currency contract defines the format of data to be a Transfer struct:

struct Transfer {
  AccountName from;
  AccountName to;
  uint64_t    amount = 0;

With this definition in hand we can convert the binary blob to something similar to:

{ "from" : "sam",  "to": "alice",  "amount": 100 }


Now that we understand the structure of an EOS.IO transaction, we can look at the structure of an EOS.IO block. Each block is divided into cycles which are executed sequentially. Within each cycle there are any number of threads that execute in parallel. The trick is to ensure that no two threads contain transactions with intersecting scopes. A block can be declared invalid without reference to any external data if there is any scope overlap among the threads within a single cycle.


The single biggest challenge to parallel execution is ensuring the same data is not being accessed by two threads at the same time. Unlike traditional parallel programming, it is not possible to use locks around memory access because the the resulting execution would necessarily be non-deterministic and potentially break consensus. Even if locks were possible, they would be undesirable because heavy use of locks can degrade performance below that of single threaded execution.

The alternative to locking at the time data is accessed, is to lock at the time execution is scheduled. From this perspective, the scope field defines the accounts a transaction wishes to acquire a lock on. The scheduler (aka block producer) ensures no two threads attempt to grab the same lock at the same time. With this transaction structure and scheduling it is possible to dramatically deconflict memory access and increase opportunities for parallel execution.

Unlike other platforms the separation of code (currency contract) from data (account storage) enables a separation of locking requirements. If the currency contract and its data were bundled then every transfer would have to lock the currency contract and all transfers would be limited by single threaded throughput. But because the transfer message only has to lock on the sender and receiver’s data the currency contract is no longer the bottleneck.

Removing the currency contract from being a bottleneck is incredibly important when you consider an exchange contract. Every time there is a deposit or withdraw from the exchange the currency contract and the exchange contract get forced into the same thread. If both of these contracts are heavily used then it will degrade the performance of all currency and all exchange users.

Under the EOS.IO model two users can transfer without worrying about the sequential (single threaded) throughput of any other accounts/contracts than those involved in the transfer.

This article was originally published on: Dan's Blof, Founder of EOS on