Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A security and performance analysis of proof-based consensus protocols

  • Published:
Annals of Telecommunications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Blockchain is a disruptive technology that will revolutionize the Internet and our way of living, working, and trading. However, the consensus protocols of most blockchain-based public systems show vulnerabilities and performance limitations that hinder the mass adoption of blockchain. This paper presents and compares the main proof-based consensus protocols, focusing on the security and performance of each consensus protocol. Proof-based protocols use the probabilistic consensus model and are more suitable for public environments with many participants, such as the Internet of Things (IoT). We highlight the centralization tendency and the main vulnerabilities of Proof of Work (PoW), Proof of Stake (PoS), and their countermeasures. We also analyze and compare alternative proof-based protocols, such as Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET), Proof of Burn (PoB), Proof of Authority (PoA), and Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS). Finally, we analyze the security of the IOTA consensus protocol, a DAG-based platform suited for the IoT environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym used by the creator or creators of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency. The real identity is unknown.

  2. The network nodes are identified by an asymmetric key pair, that provides a some level of anonymity. However, curious nodes can infer identity information based on blockchain history.

  3. This paper considers the terms nodes, pair, computer, component and process as synonyms for a consensus participant.

  4. The terms \( \hat {x} \) and \( \hat {y} \) refer to the local values of the consensus participant p and the terms x and y refer to the values as seen by an agent outside the system.

  5. A correct consensus participant is a participant that is not in a failed state.

  6. Some authors refer to crash faults as fail-stop failures. We consider both terms equivalent.

  7. FLP is an acronym in honor of its authors: Michael J. Fischer, Nancy Lynch, and Mike Paterson.

  8. The name “miner” derives from the difficulty and enormous work required to overcome the mathematical challenge.

  9. Available at https://btc.com/stats/pool. Accessed 15th March 2021.

  10. The Bitcoin Gold cryptocurrency, at the time the 26a largest currency, suffered a 51% attack in May 2018. The attackers double-spent for several days and stole more than US$18 million in Bitcoin Gold.

  11. The Krypton and Shift blockchains suffered 51% attacks in August 2016.

  12. Conflicting paths are paths that start from the same source block and have the same height and, therefore, it is not enough to apply Nakamoto’s rule of the largest chain [63].

  13. Finalizing a path means considering it as the correct path between conflicting paths.

  14. Altruistic participants are participants who preserve the proper functioning of the system, validating only one of the possible paths

  15. PoET is the main consensus protocol used in the Hyperledger Sawtooth platform, which is maintained by the Linux Foundation.

  16. Z-score measures how much the winning rate deviates from the expected mean.

  17. Over 2,100 bitcoins were burned, which exceeds 109 million dollars today’s price, to create XCP in January 2014.

  18. Some authors refer to Algorand’s consensus protocol as Pure Proof of Stake (PPoS).

  19. Available at https://geth.ethereum.org/. Accessed 15th March 2021.

  20. Available at https://www.parity.io/ethereum/. Accessed 15th March 2021.

  21. Available at https://openethereum.github.io/Aura. Accessed 15th March 2021.

  22. The number of delegates, size of time windows, and total received time are optimized by Dan Larimer for the EOSIO implementation. The optimal values may change in different environments.

  23. In the current implementation of IOTA, the number of confirmations required to add a transaction to the network is exactly two.

References

  1. Alvarenga ID, Rebello GAF, Duarte OCMB (2018) Securing configuration management and migration of virtual network functions using blockchain. In: IEEE/IFIP NOMS 2018, Pp. 1–9

  2. Taaki A et al (2014) OpenBazaar. https://openbazaar.org/

  3. Angelis SD, Aniello L, Baldoni R, Lombardi F, Margheri A, Sassone V (2018) PBFT vs proof-of-authority: applying the CAP theorem to permissioned blockchain. In: Italian Conference on Cyber Security (06/02/18). https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/415083/

  4. Attiya H, Bar-Noy A, Dolev D (1995) Sharing memory robustly in message-passing systems. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 42(1):124–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bahack L (2013) Theoretical Bitcoin attacks with less than half of the computational power (draft). arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.7013

  6. Bano S et al (2017) Consensus in the age of blockchains. CoRR abs/1711.03936. 1711.03936

  7. Bessani A, Sousa J, Alchieri EEP (2014) State machine replication for the masses with BFT-SMART. In: 2014 44Th annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks, pp 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSN.2014.43

  8. BitcoinWiki (2019) Bitcoin scalability. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

  9. Bonneau J, Felten EW, Goldfeder S, Kroll JA, Narayanan A (2016) Why buy when you can rent?. In: ICFCDS, pp 19–26. Springer

  10. Bravo-Marquez F, Reeves S, Ugarte M (2019) Proof-of-learning: a blockchain consensus mechanism based on machine learning competitions. In: International conference on decentralized applications and infrastructures (DAPPCON), pp 119–124. IEEE

  11. Brown-Cohen J, Narayanan A, Psomas A, Weinberg SM (2019) Formal barriers to longest-chain proof-of-stake protocols. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pp 459–473

  12. Bu G, Gürcan Ö, Potop-Butucaru M (2019) G-IOTA: Fair and confidence aware tangle. In: IEEE INFOCOM WKSHPS, pp 644–649

  13. Buterin V (2019) Proof-of-Stake FAQ. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ

  14. Camilo GF, Rebello GAF, de Souza LAC, Duarte OCMB (2020) A secure personal-data trading system based on blockchain, trust, and reputation. In: 2020 IEEE International conference on blockchain (blockchain), pp 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1109/Blockchain50366.2020.00055

  15. Camilo GF, Rebello GAF, de Souza LAC, Duarte OCMB (2020) Autavailchain: Automatic and secure data availability through blockchain. In: IEEE GLOBECOM, pp 1–6

  16. Carrara GR, Burle LM, Medeiros DS, de Albuquerque CVN, Mattos DM (2020) Consistency, availability, and partition tolerance in blockchain: a survey on the consensus mechanism over peer-to-peer networking. Ann Telecommun, pp 1–12

  17. Castro M, Liskov B (1999) Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI ’99. USENIX Association, USA, pp 173–186

  18. Chen L, Xu L, Shah N, Gao Z, Lu Y, Shi W (2017) On security analysis of proof-of-elapsed-time (poET). In: International symposium on stabilization, safety, and security, pp 282–297. Springer

  19. Clark J, Essex A (2012) Commitcoin: Carbon dating commitments with bitcoin. In: International conference on financial cryptography and data security, pp 390–398. Springer

  20. Conti M, Kumar ES, Lal C, Ruj S (2018) A survey on security and privacy issues of Bitcoin. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 20(4):3416–3452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Costa LHMK, Fdida S, Duarte OCMB (2006) Incremental service deployment using the hop-by-hop multicast routing protocol. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 14(3):543–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Costan V, Devadas S (2016) Intel SGX explained. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2016(86):1–118

    Google Scholar 

  23. Coulouris G, Dollimore J, Kindberg T, Blair G (2011) Distributed systems: Concepts and design. 5th. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 662:665–668

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. cryptoID (2021) Slimcoin Blockchain Explorer. https://chainz.cryptoid.info/slm/

  25. Dang H, Dinh A, Chang EC, Ooi BC (2018) Chain of trust:, Can trusted hardware help scaling blockchains? arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00399

  26. Decentralized Web (2017) Slimcoin: First Proof of Burn currency. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141676.1915;wap2

  27. Deirmentzoglou E, Papakyriakopoulos G, Patsakis C (2019) A survey on long-range attacks for proof of stake protocols. IEEE Access 7:28712–28725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dermody R., Krellenstein A., Slama O. (2014) Counterparty. https://counterparty.io/

  29. Digiconomist (2020) Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

  30. Dinh TTA, Wang J, Chen G, Liu R, Ooi BC, Tan KL (2017) BLOCKBENCH: A Framework for Analyzing Private Blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD ’17, pp 1085–1100. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3035918.3064033

  31. Dong Y, Boutaba R (2019) Elasticoin: Low-volatility cryptocurrency with proofs of sequential work. In: 2019 IEEE International conference on blockchain and cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp 205–209. IEEE

  32. Ekparinya P, Gramoli V, Jourjon G (2019) The attack of the clones against proof-of-authority. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.10244

  33. Eyal I, Sirer EG (2018) Majority is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable. Commun. ACM 61(7):95–102. https://doi.org/10.1145/3212998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Finney H (2011) Best practice for fast transaction acceptance-how high is the risk?. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3441.msg48384#msg48384

  35. Fischer MJ, Lynch NA, Paterson MS (1985) Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. JACM 32(2):374–382

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Gervais A, Karame GO, Wüst K, Glykantzis V, Ritzdorf H, Capkun S (2016) On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In: ACM SIGSAC, pp 3–16

  37. Gilad Y, Hemo R, Micali S, Vlachos G, Zeldovich N (2017) Algorand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies. In: Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp 51–68

  38. Hadzilacos V, Toueg S (1994) A Modular Approach to the Specification and Implementation of Fault-Tolerant Broadcasts. Tech. rep., Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, New York - USA

  39. Heilman E, Kendler A, Zohar A, Goldberg S (2015) Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In: USENIX Security’15, pp 129–144

  40. Hoang VH, Lehtihet E, Ghamri-Doudane Y (2020) Privacy-preserving blockchain-based data sharing platform for decentralized storage systems. In: 2020 IFIP Networking conference (networking), pp 280–288. IEEE

  41. Stewart I (2012) Proof of Burn. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn

  42. Stewart I (2012) Proof of burn - a potential alternative to proof of work and proof of stake. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131139.msg1404195

  43. InfStones (2018) The Economics of EOS Blockchain. https://medium.com/infstones/the-economics-of-eos-blockchain-621d5d1e45b8

  44. Ismail L, Materwala H (2019) A review of blockchain architecture and consensus protocols: Use cases, challenges, and solutions. Symmetry 11(10):1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Johnson B, Laszka A, Grossklags J, Vasek M, Moore T (2014) Game-theoretic analysis of DDos attacks against Bitcoin mining pools. In: ICFCDS, pp 72–86

  46. Joshi AP, Han M, Wang Y (2018) A survey on security and privacy issues of blockchain technology. MFC 1(2):121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Karame GO, Androulaki E, Capkun S (2012) Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin. In: ACM CCS 2012, Pp. 906–917

  48. Karantias K, Kiayias A, Zindros D (2020) Proof-of-burn. In: International conference on financial cryptography and data security, pp 523–540. Springer

  49. Kiayias A, Russell A, David B, Oliynykov R (2017) Ouroboros: a provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In: CRYPTO, pp 357–388

  50. King S, Nadal S (2012) PPCOin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. self-published paper, August 19

  51. Kwon J (2014) Tendermint: Consensus without mining. Draft v. 0.6 fall 1(11)

  52. Kwon J, Buchman E (2019) Cosmos whitepaper

  53. Lamport L (1998) The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions Computer Systems 16(2):133–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lamport L, Shostak R, Pease M (1982) The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM TOPLAS 4(3):382–401. https://doi.org/10.1145/357172.357176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Larimer D (2017) DPoS Consensus Algorithm - The Missing White Paper. https://steemit.com/dpos/@dantheman/dpos-consensus-algorithm-this-missing-white-paper

  56. Larimer D (2017) EOS.IO White Paper. https://developers.eos.io/-welcome/latest/protocol/consensus_protocol

  57. Larimer D et al (2018) EOS.IO Technical White Paper v2. https://github.com/EOSIO/Documentation/blob/master/TechnicalWhitePaper.md

  58. Li K, Li H, Hou H, Li K, Chen Y (2017) Proof of vote: a high-performance consensus protocol based on vote mechanism amp; consortium blockchain. In: 2017 IEEE 19Th international conference on high performance computing and communications; IEEE 15th international conference on smart city; IEEE 3rd international conference on data science and systems (HPCC/smartcity/DSS), pp 466–473. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC-SmartCity-DSS.2017.61

  59. Li W, Andreina S, Bohli JM, Karame G (2017) Securing proof-of-stake blockchain protocols. In: DPM/CBT, pp 297–315. Springer

  60. Li X, Jiang P, Chen T, Luo X, Wen Q (2020) A survey on the security of blockchain systems. FGCS 107:841–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lunardi RC, Michelin RA, Neu CV, Zorzo AF (2018) Distributed access control on IoT ledger-based architecture. In: NOMS 2018-2018 IEEE/IFIP Network operations and management symposium, pp 1–7. IEEE

  62. Mossé D, Pötter H, Lee S (2020) Maintaining privacy and utility in IoT system analytics. In: 2020 Second IEEE international conference on trust, privacy and security in intelligent systems and applications (TPS-ISA), pp 157–164. IEEE

  63. Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  64. Natoli C, Yu J, Gramoli V, Esteves-Verissimo P (2019) Deconstructing blockchains: A comprehensive survey on consensus, membership and structure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08316

  65. Nguyen DC, Pathirana PN, Ding M, Seneviratne A (2020) Blockchain and edge computing for decentralized emrs sharing in federated healthcare. In: GLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global communications conference, pp 1–6. IEEE

  66. Nguyen DC, Pathirana PN, Ding M, Seneviratne A (2020) Blockchain for 5g and beyond networks: a state of the art survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications p 102693

  67. NXT community (2014) Nxt whitepaper. https://nxtwiki.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt

  68. Oliveira MT, et al. (2019) Towards a performance evaluation of private blockchain frameworks using a realistic workload. In: ICIN, pp 180–187. IEEE

  69. de Oliveira MT, et al. (2020) Blockchain reputation-based consensus: a scalable and resilient mechanism for distributed mistrusting applications. Computer Networks p 107367

  70. Olson K, Bowman M, Mitchell J, Amundson S, Middleton D, Montgomery C (2018) Sawtooth: an introduction linux foundation

  71. P4Titan (2014) Slimcoin a peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-burn “Mining without Powerful Hardware”. https://github.com/slimcoin-project/slimcoin-project.github.io/raw/master/whitepaperSLM.pdf

  72. Popov S (2017) The Tangle. cit. on p. 131. http://www.descryptions.com/Iota.pdf

  73. Praveen G, Anand M, Singh PK, Ranjan P (2020) An overview of blockchain consensus and vulnerability. In: International conference on information and communication technology for intelligent systems, pp 459–468. Springer

  74. Rebello GAF, Alvarenga ID, Sanz IJ, Duarte OCM (2019) BSEc-NFVO: A blockchain-based security for network function virtualization orchestration. In: IEEE ICC, pp 1–6

  75. Rebello GAF, Camilo GF, Guimarães LCB, de Souza LAC, Duarte OCMB (2020) On the security and performance of proof-based consensus protocols. In: 2020 4Th conference on cloud and internet of things (CIot), pp 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIoT50422.2020.9244295

  76. Rebello GAF, et al. (2019) Providing a sliced, secure, and isolated software infrastructure of virtual functions through blockchain technology. In: IEEE HPSR, pp 1–6

  77. van Schaik S, Kwong A, Genkin D, Yarom Y (2020) SGAxe: How SGX fails in practice

  78. Schwartz D, Youngs N, Britto A (2014) The ripple protocol consensus algorithm. Ripple Labs Inc White Paper. https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf

  79. de Souza LAC, Rebello GAF, Camilo GF, Guimarães LC, Duarte OCM (2020) DFEdforest: decentralized federated forest. In: 2020 IEEE International conference on blockchain (blockchain), pp 90–97. IEEE

  80. Wang W et al (2018) A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining management in blockchain networks. CoRR abs/1805.02707. 1805.02707

  81. Wood G (2014) Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. http://bitcoinaffiliatelist.com/wp-content/uploads/ethereum.pdf

  82. Xiao Y, Zhang N, Lou W, Hou YT (2020) Modeling the impact of network connectivity on consensus security of proof-of-work blockchain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08912

  83. Xiao Y, Zhang N, Lou W, Hou YT (2020) A survey of distributed consensus protocols for blockchain networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 22(2):1432–1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Xu B, Luthra D, Cole Z, Blakely N (2018) EOS: An architectural, performance, and economic analysis. Retrieved June 11, 2019

  85. Yu B, Liu J, Nepal S, Yu J, Rimba P (2019) Proof-of-qos: Qos based blockchain consensus protocol. Computers & Security 87:101580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Zhang P, Zhou M (2020) Security and trust in blockchains: Architecture, key technologies, and open issues. IEEE TCSS 7(3):790–801

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was financed by CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (2018/23292-0, 15/24485-9, 14/50937-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grupo de Teleinformática e Automação, Univesidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Gabriel Antonio F. Rebello, Gustavo F. Camilo, Lucas C. B. Guimarães, Lucas Airam C. de Souza, Guilherme A. Thomaz & Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte

Authors
  1. Gabriel Antonio F. Rebello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gustavo F. Camilo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucas C. B. Guimarães
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lucas Airam C. de Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guilherme A. Thomaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Antonio F. Rebello.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rebello, G.A.F., Camilo, G.F., Guimarães, L.C.B. et al. A security and performance analysis of proof-based consensus protocols. Ann. Telecommun. 77, 517–537 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-021-00896-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-021-00896-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation