The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Survey of Distributed Consensus Protocols for Blockchain Networks
Open accessAbstract
Since the inception of Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and the underlying blockchain technology have attracted an increasing interest from both academia and industry. Among various core components, consensus protocol is the defining technology behind the security and performance of blockchain. From incremental modifications of Nakamoto consensus protocol to innovative alternative consensus mechanisms, many consensus protocols have been proposed to improve the performance of the blockchain network itself or to accommodate other specific application needs. In this survey, we present a comprehensive review and analysis on the state-of-the-art blockchain consensus protocols. To facilitate the discussion of our analysis, we first introduce the key definitions and relevant results in the classic theory of fault tolerance which help to lay the foundation for further discussion. We identify five core components of a blockchain consensus protocol, namely, block proposal, block validation, information propagation, block finalization, and incentive mechanism. A wide spectrum of blockchain consensus protocols are then carefully reviewed accompanied by algorithmic abstractions and vulnerability analyses. The surveyed consensus protocols are analyzed using the five-component framework and compared with respect to different performance metrics. These analyses and comparisons provide us new insights in the fundamental differences of various proposals in terms of their suitable application scenarios, key assumptions, expected fault tolerance, scalability, drawbacks and trade-offs. We believe this survey will provide blockchain developers and researchers a comprehensive view on the state-of-the-art consensus protocols and facilitate the process of designing future protocols.
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
Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system
Lamport, L. (1978) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/359545.359563 · Cited by 8,488
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
A Digital Signature Based on a Conventional Encryption Function
Merkle, R. C. (1988) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-48184-2_32 · Cited by 1,998
Algorand: Scaling Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies
Gilad, Y., Hemo, R., Micali, S., Vlachos, G., & Zeldovich, N. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles · doi:10.1145/3132747.3132757 · Cited by 1,499
The Quest for Scalable Blockchain Fabric: Proof-of-Work vs. BFT Replication
Vukolić, M. (2016) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39028-4_9 · Cited by 1,051 · cited 5×
“In summary, This paradigm shift has brought the design and analysis of blockchain consensus protocols into formal scientific research, echoing Cachin and Vukolić [19] that blockchain design should follow the rigor established by prevailing wisdom.”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Cited by
Blockchain without waste: Proof-of-stake
Saleh, F. (2021) · The Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhaa075 · Cited by 825
A Survey on Blockchain Technology: Evolution, Architecture and Security
Bhutta, M. N. M., Khwaja, A. A., Nadeem, A., Ahmad, H. F., Khan, M. K., Hanif, M. A., Song, H., Alshamari, M., & Cao, Y. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3072849 · Cited by 522
A Comprehensive Review of Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms
Lashkari, B., & Musilek, P. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3065880 · Cited by 499
Bhuiyan, M. N., Rahman, M. M., Billah, M. M., & Saha, D. (2021) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2021.3062630 · Cited by 490
Bhushan, B., Khamparia, A., Sagayam, K. M., Sharma, S. K., Ahad, M. A., & Debnath, N. C. (2020) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102360 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Authors
- Xiao, Y., Zhang, N., Lou, W., & Hou, Y. T.
- Venue
- IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1432-1465
- ISSN
- 1553-877X (ISSN-L)
- 2373-745X
- OpenAlex
- W2926987861
- Cited by
- 841
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 109.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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 Distributed Consensus Protocols for Blockchain Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/comst.2020.2969706
- The paper
- Xiao, Y., Zhang, N., Lou, W., & Hou, Y. T. (2020). A Survey of Distributed Consensus Protocols for Blockchain Networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2020.2969706
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.