The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A survey of blockchain consensus algorithms performance evaluation criteria
Abstract
Abstract How to reach an agreement in a blockchain network is a complex and important task that is defined as a consensus problem and has wide applications in reality including distributed computing, load balancing, and transaction validation in blockchains. Over recent years, many studies have been done to cope with this problem. In this paper, a comparative and analytical review on the state-of-the-art blockchain consensus algorithms is presented to enlighten the strengths and constraints of each algorithm. Based on their inherent specifications, each algorithm has a different domain of applicability that yields to propose several performance criteria for the evaluation of these algorithms. To overview and provide a basis of comparison for further work in the field, a set of incommensurable and conflicting performance evaluation criteria is identified and weighted by the pairwise comparison method. These criteria are classified into four categories including algorithms’ throughput, the profitability of mining, degree of decentralization and consensus algorithms vulnerabilities and security issues. Based on the proposed framework, the pros and cons of consensus algorithms are systematically analyzed and compared in order to provide a deep understanding of the existing research challenges and clarify the future study directions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hardin, G. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 · Cited by 25,167
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Wright, C. S. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3440802 · Cited by 13,922
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Squarepants, S. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3977007 · Cited by 11,148
Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process
Saaty, T. L. (2008) · International Journal of Services Sciences · doi:10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590 · Cited by 10,301
The Byzantine generals problem
Lamport, L., Shostak, R., & Pease, M. (1982) · ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · doi:10.1145/357172.357176 · Cited by 6,023
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N. A., & Paterson, M. S. (1985) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3149.214121 · Cited by 4,579
An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress) · doi:10.1109/bigdatacongress.2017.85 · Cited by 4,515
Douceur, J. R. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45748-8_24 · Cited by 4,419
Practical Byzantine fault tolerance
Castro, M., & Liskov, B. H. (1999) · Operating Systems Design and Implementation · doi:10.5555/296806.296824 · Cited by 3,205
Lamport, L. (1998) · ACM Transactions on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/279227.279229 · Cited by 2,737
Cited by
Skh Saad, S. M., & Raja Mohd Radzi, R. Z. (2020) · International Journal of Innovative Computing · doi:10.11113/ijic.v10n2.272 · Cited by 119
Ko, K., Jeong, T., Woo, J., & Hong, J. W. (2024) · International Journal of Network Management · doi:10.1002/nem.2245 · Cited by 45
Blockchain and Cloud to Overcome the Problems of Buyer and Seller Watermarking Protocols
Frattolillo, F. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app112412028 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Bamakan, S. M. H., Motavali, A., & Babaei Bondarti, A.
- Venue
- Expert Systems with Applications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 154
- Pages
- 113385
- ISSN
- 0957-4174 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3016687266
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 111
- FWCI
- 58.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A survey of blockchain consensus algorithms performance evaluation criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113385
- The paper
- Bamakan, S. M. H., Motavali, A., & Babaei Bondarti, A. (2020). A survey of blockchain consensus algorithms performance evaluation criteria. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113385
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.