Comparative analysis of blockchain consensus algorithms
Abstract
Cryptocurrencies have seen a massive surge in popularity and behind these new virtual currencies is an innovative technology called the blockchain: a distributed digital ledger in which cryptocurrency transactions are recorded after having been verified. The transactions within a ledger are verified by multiple clients or “validators,” within the cryptocurrency's peer-to-peer network using one of many varied consensus algorithms for resolving the problem of reliability in a network involving multiple unreliable nodes. The most widely used consensus algorithms are the Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm and the Proof of Stake (PoS) algorithm; however, there are also other consensus algorithms which utilize alternative implementations of PoW and PoS, as well as other hybrid implementations and some altogether new consensus strategies. In this paper, we perform a comparative analysis of typical consensus algorithms and some of their contemporaries that are currently in use in modern blockchains. Our analysis focuses on the algorithmic steps taken by each consensus algorithm, the scalability of the algorithm, the method the algorithm rewards validators for their time spent verifying blocks, and the security risks present within the algorithm. Finally, we present our conclusion and some possible future trends for consensus algorithms used in blockchains.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
As PBFT needs several transactions among peers before approving a block, transaction time is also high like Ripple.
“Similarly, as PBFT needs several transactions among peers before approving a block, transaction time is also high like Ripple [84].”
From Proof-of-familiarity: a privacy-preserved blockchain scheme for collaborative medical decision-making (2019) · cites this paper as [84]
PoS improved scalability by achieving better latency with a smaller block size.
“PoS improved scalability by achieving better latency with a smaller block size [84].”
From Proof-of-familiarity: a privacy-preserved blockchain scheme for collaborative medical decision-making (2019) · cites this paper as [84]
Cites
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemPreprint
Nakamoto, S. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3440802 · Cited by 14,600 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery
Castro, M., & Liskov, B. (2002) · ACM Transactions on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/571637.571640 · Cited by 2,475 · see citing works
Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol
Kiayias, A., Russell, A. C., David, B., & Oliynykov, R. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63688-7_12 · Cited by 1,505 · see citing works
Majority Is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable
Eyal, I., & Sirer, E. G. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45472-5_28 · Cited by 1,410 · see citing works
PPCoin: Peer-to-Peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Stake
King, S., & Nadal, S. (2012) · Cited by 984 · see citing works
The Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm
Schwartz, D., Youngs, N., & Britto, A. (2014) · Cited by 526 · see citing works
Survey of consensus protocols on blockchain applications
Sankar, L. S., Sindhu, M., & Sethumadhavan, M. (2017) · International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS) · doi:10.1109/icaccs.2017.8014672 · Cited by 473 · see citing works
Milutinovic, M., He, W., Wu, H., & Kanwal, M. (2016) · Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution (SysTEX) · doi:10.1145/3007788.3007790 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Sustainable blockchain through proof of exercise
Shoker, A. (2017) · IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA) · doi:10.1109/nca.2017.8171383 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Asynchronous Byzantine consensus with 2f+1 processes
Correia, M. P., Veronese, G. S., & Lung, L. C. (2010) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/1774088.1774187 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A survey of blockchain from the perspectives of applications, challenges, and opportunities
Monrat, A. A., Schelen, O., & Andersson, K. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2936094 · Cited by 1,077 · see citing works
Kang, J., Xiong, Z., Niyato, D., Ye, D., Kim, D. I., & Zhao, J. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2019.2894944 · Cited by 604 · see citing works
A Comprehensive Review of Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms
Lashkari, B., & Musilek, P. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3065880 · Cited by 499 · see citing works
Kumar, G., Saha, R., Rai, M. K., Thomas, R., & Kim, T.-H. (2019) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2911969 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
A Survey of Self-Sovereign Identity Ecosystem
Soltani, R., Nguyen, U. T., & An, A. (2021) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1155/2021/8873429 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
“Bach et al. [101] and Du et al. [102] verification. addresses some of the privacy and security concerns associated with a central point of authority.”
BackgroundAnalysis of identity management systems using blockchain technology
Haddouti, S. E., & Ech-Cherif El Kettani, M. D. (2019) · 2019 International Conference on Advanced Communication Technologies and Networking (CommNet) · doi:10.1109/commnet.2019.8742375 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Yang, J., Onik, M. M. H., Lee, N.-Y., Ahmed, M., & Kim, C.-S. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9071370 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Ko, K., Jeong, T., Woo, J., & Hong, J. W. (2024) · International Journal of Network Management · doi:10.1002/nem.2245 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
BlockSIEM: Protecting Smart City Services through a Blockchain-based and Distributed SIEM
Botello, J. V., Mesa, A. P., Rodríguez, F. A., Díaz-López, D., Nespoli, P., & Mármol, F. G. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20164636 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bach, L. M., Mihaljevic, B., & Zagar, M.
- Affiliations
- Rochester Institute of Technology Croatia (HR)
- Venue
- 2018 41st International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-05
- Pages
- 1545-1550
- OpenAlex
- W2810807736
- Cited by
- 584
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 53.64
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Keywords
- blockchain consensus, proof-of-work, proof-of-stake, cryptocurrency, distributed ledger technology, scalability, security risks, hybrid consensus, peer-to-peer networks
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
