See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348355281

Comparative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms of Blockchain Technology

Conference Paper · March 2020

CITATIONS READS

13 4,681

2 authors:

Ashok Kumar Yadav Karan Singh

Rajkiya Engineering College Azamgarh UP India Jawaharlal Nehru University
21 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashok Kumar Yadav on 01 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparative Analysis of Consensus
Algorithms of Blockchain Technology

Ashok Kumar Yadav and Karan Singh

Abstract In today’s era of big data and machine learning, IoT is playing a very
crucial role in nearly all areas like social, economic, political, education, health care.
This drastic increase in data creates security, privacy, and trust issues in the era of
the Internet. The responsibility of IT is to ensure the privacy and security for huge
incoming information and data due to the drastic evolution of the IoT in the coming
years. The blockchain has emerged as one of the major technologies that have the
potential to transform the way of sharing the huge information and increase trust
among. Building trust in a distributed and decentralized environment without the
call for a trusted third party is a technological challenge for researchers. Due to the
emergence of IoT, the huge and critical information is available over the Internet. The
trust over the information is reduced drastically, causing an increase in security and
privacy concern day by day. Blockchain is one of the best-emerging technologies for
ensuring privacy and security by using cryptographic algorithms and hashing. We
will discuss the basics of blockchain technology, consensus algorithms, comparison
of important consensus algorithms, and areas of application.

Keywords Consensus algorithm · Merkle tree · Hashing · DLT · Hash cash

1 Introduction

Recent advancements of wireless communication, computing power, Internet, big

data, cloud computing increase the data day by day. The drastic increase in data
creates a lot of problems like security, privacy, trust, and authentication. The respon-
sibility of IT is to ensure the privacy and security for huge incoming information and
data due to the drastic evolution of the IoT in the coming years. The blockchain has
emerged as one of the major technologies that have the potential to transform the way
of sharing the huge information and trust to another. Building trust in the distributed

A. K. Yadav (B) · K. Singh

School of Computer and Systems Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
e-mail: ashokyadav88.jnu@gmail.com
K. Singh
e-mail: karan@mail.jnu.ac.in
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 205
Y.-C. Hu et al. (eds.), Ambient Communications and Computer Systems, Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing 1097,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1518-7_17
206 A. K. Yadav and K. Singh

and the decentralized environment without a trusted third party is a technological

advancement that has the potential to change upcoming scenarios of the society,
industries, and organizations. In today’s era of big data and machine learning, IoT is
playing a very crucial role in nearly all areas like social, economic, political, educa-
tion, health care. Disruptive technologies such as big data and cloud computing have
been benefited by IoT. Due to the emergence of IoT, the huge and critical information
is available over the Internet. The trust over the information is reduced drastically,
causing an increase in security and privacy concern day by day. The blockchain is
one of the best-emerging technologies for ensuring privacy and security by using
cryptographic algorithms.
Blockchain technology has turned out from the concept of timestamping of digital
document published by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991. Time stamp-
ing of a digital document is used to maintain the dignity and integrity of the digital
document by a particular node [1]. Cryptocurrency Bitcoin has acquired so much
fame implemented by Satoshi Nakamoto in the year 2009 [2]. There are many cryp-
tocurrencies that exist, but no one gets the same as Bitcoin. It has emerged as a
decentralized system. Blockchain technology considered and regarded as a public
ledger. “Blockchain is an incorruptible decentralized digital public ledger of eco-
nomic transactions that can be programmed to record not just financial transactions
but also virtually everything of values to facilitate data decentralization, transparency,
the immutability of digital ledger, security and privacy provenance, trust and finality
in peer-to-peer network.” Blockchain implemented as a digital ledger on top of the
Web which can be seen as an analogy to SMTP, HTTP, or FTP running on top of
TCP/IP. Blockchain is append-only, immutable and only updatable with the consent
of peers within the network is possible, which can be performed using the built-in
consensus mechanism [3].
Blockchain technology is the effective application of existing technology such as
decentralization, hashcash, public ledger, consensus, Merkle tree, public-key encryp-
tion, and hashing algorithm. Decentralization can be considered as the first most
important perspective of blockchain technology. Basically, decentralization is a plat-
form where various peers can participate to generate block having the same authority
and to cooperate. Every peer connected will have the same authority to make changes
in public ledger if applicable. Network failure during the execution of the transaction
does not affect the transaction too much because every peer makes their own sepa-
rate network. Public ledger is documentation of every successful transaction which
is available and sharable to all peers (in peer-to-peer network) (Fig. 1).
Structure and the size of the block are implementation-dependent. The maximum
number of transactions that a block can contain depends upon the block size and the
size of each transaction. Blockchain cannot guarantee the transaction privacy since
the values of all transactions and balance for each public key are publicly visible.
A block has block header, and block body block header contains block version,
Merkle tree root hash, timestamp, N bits target threshold of a valid block hash, nonce
and parent block hash. Block body contains transaction counter and transactions.
Blockchain is a chain of blocks. It is considered longer the chain of blocks more
will be prioritized to add a new block to provide privacy and security. All the blocks
Comparative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms … 207

Merkle
Tree Decentralized Technique

Public Key
Encryption Blockchain Distributed Ledger
Technology
Hashing Consensus Protocol
Algorithm

Provide

• Data Centralization
• Transparency
• Security and Privacy
• Tamper proof replicated ledger
• Immutable Ledger
• Automation and Smart Contract
• New way of storage

Fig. 1 Component of blockchain and output

connected in the chain can avail security, decentralization and permissionless facility
in systems where any users can take participate without providing their identity
[4]. It will lead to taking care of all malicious activity in the transaction phase.
Mining is the solution to such a problem. Miners will decide the block size and
transaction probability, and whether it will add to blockchain or not. If the answer is
yes, then which chain will be used to add a block also decided by miners. Finally, after
investigation new block will add at the longest chain. Making a bit change of nonce
will affect the whole hash of all successor blocks. It is very difficult to identify the
real hash value. Miners get some incentives to maintain their honesty with block size
and transaction. Change in a transaction will provide a replica of that particular block
to every peer connected with that transaction. Variation in transactions can be done
by miners. It leads to an honesty problem and failing to design a secure and privacy
system. Miner having high-power computing machine will get more incentive. The
high-power computing machine consumes a huge amount of electricity. It is a major
concern for the miner. The solution to this is to use an effective consensus algorithm.
There are several consensus algorithms have proposed. We will investigate some
most important consensus algorithms and do a comparative analysis [5].
208 A. K. Yadav and K. Singh

2 Background and Types of Consensus Protocol

The concept of hashcash was suggested by Adam Back in 1997 [6]. Hashcash is a min-
ing algorithm used as proof-of-work consensus algorithm (used for permissionless
blockchain technology, i.e., Bitcoin). It is used to restrain e-mail and save such system
from denial of attacks. Brute force method is the only way to implement the hash-
cash. The consensus algorithm is the heart of blockchain technology. The consensus is
considered as the pillar of the blockchain network. Many consensus algorithms have
been suggested to get system safe from any malicious activity in blockchain technol-
ogy: Proof of work (PoW), proof of stake (PoS), delegated proof of stake (DPoS),
practical byzantine fault tolerance (PBFT), etc., are some of them. Basically, con-
sensus ensures the attainment of logical decision so every peer should agree whether
a transaction should be committed in the database or not [7]. Blockchain uses the
technique of hash function, Merkle tree, nonce (to make hash function harder to
retrace) and others to provide data centralization, transparency, security and privacy,
tamper proof replicated ledger, immutable ledger non-repudiation, irreversibility of
records, automation and smart contract, a new way of storing.

2.1 Proof-of-Work (PoW) Consensus Algorithm

Proof of work was invented by Dwork and Moni Naor 1993 and formalized by
Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels in 1999. It ensures economic measures to prevent
denial-of-service attacks. DoS attacks to prevent legitimate users from using the
service. It is the asymmetry, i.e., hard on the requester side, but easy to check for the
service provider. The proof of work prevents fraud nodes to get a grip of true nodes.
The concept of PoW is used beyond blockchain. Ideally, the concept is to produce
a challenge to a user, and the user has to produce a solution which should show
some proof of work being done against that challenge. Once it is validated, the user
accepted it. It eliminates the entity that is slow or not capable enough to generate
PoW. In blockchain, PoW is used to generate a value that is difficult to generate and
easy to verify. To generate block hash, there are n leading 0. It will help in solution
and known as a nonce (Fig. 2).
The brute force method is applied to find the value of the nonce. The combination
of the nonce and the block data which has generated, including the hash value of
the previous block comes out with required leading 0. More is the value of n, more
the complexity. PoW in the context of blockchain signifies that the computation
required is exponential to the number of leading 0 required in PoW. As the blocks
are chained, redoing will require an entire chain to be redone. It also signifies that
some amount of computation and effort has been invested in finding the solution to the
problem [5].
Since many of the miners working in the same permissionless network, it will
be difficult to identify which miner will commit the block and verify the committed
Comparative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms … 209

Start

Group the transactions to form a block that need to be verified

Server generates mathematical puzzle

Miners compete to solve the problem

First one to find the solution sends the PoW to the network

All other nodes verify the solution

No
Is solution?
Block is cancelled
yes

Block is added to the existing block chain and information is updated

Reward the miner

End

Fig. 2 Flowchart of PoW algorithm

transaction block. In PoW, miners are taking around 10 min to gather all the commit-
ted transactions and generate a new block for them. So now what can be metadata
contain in a block that should be previous block hash, block hash, Merkle tree, nonce,
and it makes the attackers very hopeless unless attacker should not be mined that
is why miners are awarded some incentives in form of cryptocurrency when they
generate a new block [8]. PoW is also difficult for the miners to propose a new block
(i.e., to find a nonce that will not affect the previous block hash), and miners must
show their prior done work which he had generated before proposing a new block
to other nodes. Timestamping should also be a factor of the block so that later peer
cannot disagree on its transaction made. The major problem for the miners is to get
how many zeros the hashcode should be generated. In PoW, node having high-power
machine will perform more transactions to be committed and generate a new block.
210 A. K. Yadav and K. Singh

This will lead to higher incentives toward node utilizing more powerful machine in
generating new blocks [9].

2.2 Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Consensus Algorithm

In proof of work, miners are required to give a solution for the complex cryptographic
hash problem. Miners compete with each other to become the first to find the nonce.
The first miner solves the puzzle gets the reward. Mining in proof-of-work algorithm
requires a lot of computing power and resources (Fig. 3).
All the energy is used to solve the puzzle. Higher the computational power, the
higher the hash rate, and thus, the higher the chances of mining the next block. This
leads to the formation of mining pools where miners come together and share their

Start

Validator stakes some amount of money

Validator is chosen

Validator creates a block

No

Is valid Reward and

Block ? stakes amount

Yes

Block is added to the blockchain

Validator receives reward and staked amount

End

Fig. 3 Flowchart of PoS algorithm

Comparative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms … 211

computational power to solve the puzzle and share the reward among themselves.
Proof of work uses a huge amount of electricity and encourages mining pools which
take the blockchain toward centralization [10]. To solve these issues, a new consensus
algorithm was proposed called proof of stake. A validator is chosen randomly to
validate the next block. To become a validator, a node has to deposit a certain amount
of coins in the network as a stake. This process is called staking/minting/forging.
The chance of becoming the validator is proportional to the stake. The bigger the
stake is, the higher the chances validate the block. This algorithm favors the rich
stake. When a validator tries to approve an invalid block, he/she loses a part of the
stake. When a validator approves a valid block, he/she gets the transaction fees and
the stake is returned. Therefore, the amount of the stake should be higher than the
total transaction fee to avoid any fraudulent block to be added. A fraud validator
loses more coins than he/she gets. If a node does not wish to be a validator anymore,
his/her stake, as well as transaction fees, is released after a certain period of time (not
immediately as network needs to punish the node if he/she is involved in fraudulent
block). Proof of stake does not ask for huge amounts of electrical power, and it is
more decentralized.
It is more environmentally friendly than proof of work. 51% attack is less likely to
happen with proof of stake as the validator should have at least 51% of all the coins
which is a very huge amount. Proof of stake is performing for the more protective
way and to use less usage of power to execute the transaction. Sometimes, a person
having the more cryptocurrency (i.e., Bitcoin) will have more probability to mine
new block, but again, it was arising the problem of dominance when a person having
50% or more and then it will have the highest probability to mine the block so the
solution has been made in terms of some randomization protocol in which random
nodes are selected to mine new block. Since it was also found that nodes are priory
starting with PoW, they move to PoS for better and smoother usage.
In PoW, miners can mine only one block and choosing a wrong fork is costly for
miners. If a miner chooses the wrong branch, then later, another branch ends up being
the longest chain, and the miner’s resources for mining the block are wasted. In PoS,
the validators can forge multiple forks and choosing a wrong fork is not costly as
miners did not spend expensive resources. Every other validator can work on multiple
branches. A fraud validator can double spend with the money. A node can include a
fraudulent block in one branch and wait for it to be confirmed by the service; once
it is confirmed, the node can double-spend the money by including the block in the
other branch [11]. A malicious validator can approve a “bad” block in one fork and
a “good” block in the other. In case if the same validator again gets the chance to
validate the blocks, he/she might work in “bad” branch, making the “bad” branch
longer than the “good” one. Hence, other validators, too, may start working on the
longest chain that includes a fraudulent block. In PoS, validators should have some
amount of money for the stake. The problem is how the validators would manage
to acquire money at the beginning when the PoS was at its initial stage. Proof of
stake needs the coins to be distributed initially as the coins are needed for forging.
In Pos, the attacker can go back to the previous blocks and rewrite the history. The
attacker may buy some old private keys from the old validators who have lost interest
212 A. K. Yadav and K. Singh

in forging. A node staking a larger amount of money than the other nodes has more
chances of becoming the validator.

2.3 Proof-of-Activity (PoA) Consensus Algorithm

Since PoA can be considered as the combination of proof of stack (PoS) and proof of
work (PoW), PoA modifies the solution for PoS. If any miner wants to commit some
transactions in a block as to mine a new block, then if that miner wants to commit
that mined block into the database, and then most of every node sign the block for
validation [12] (Fig. 4).

2.4 Proof-of-Elapsed Time Consensus Algorithm (PoET)

PoET algorithm suggests some common steps to select the miner that which would
mine a new block. Each miner that had mined the prior block had waited for random
time quantum to do so. Any miner which is proposing any new block to mine should
wait for the random moment of time, and it will be easy to determine whether any
miner which is proposed for the new block to mine has waited for some time or not
by making a determination that a miner has utilized a special CPU instruction set
(Fig. 5).

2.5 Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT)

PBFT algorithm concerns when one or more node in any network becomes faulty
and behave maliciously that result in improper communication among all nodes
connected to that network. Such things result in a delay in functioning, whereas time
is a very serious concern as we already are working in an asynchronous system where
if at least one fault occurs, then it would be impossible to solve the consensus problem.
It will also generate discrimination in responses of various nodes. PBFT works for the
permissioned model. In practical byzantine fault tolerance, state machine replication
occurs at multiple nodes and the client will wait for an n + 1 response from all nodes
where n is the number of faulty nodes, but it isn’t giving the proper solution for this
because n + 1 cannot determine the majority vote for the client. PBFT applies to the
asynchronous system [13].
Generally, PBFT was attained after PAXOS and RAFT that both have maximum
fault tolerance of n/2 − 1 among all nodes where n seems to be the number of faulty
nodes [14]. However, PBFT is getting around 3n + 1 response among all non-faulty
nodes where n is determined as the faulty nodes. As we are discussing the state
machine replication, then it is important to understand it (Fig. 6).
Comparative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms … 213

Start

Miners group the transactions to form a block that need to

be verified

Server generates mathematical puzzle

Miners compete to solve the problem

First one to find the solution sends the block to the

network

Validators stake some amount of money

Validators are randomly chosen

Mined block is assigned to a group of validators to verify

No
Block is valid ?

Yes

Block is added to the blockchain

Miners and validators receive reward

End

Fig. 4 Flowchart of PoA algorithm

2.6 Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) Consensus Algorithm

Delegated proof of stake is similar to PoS algorithm. It refers to more decentralized

fashion in blockchain network, and it also modifies the way by which energy can be
utilized often very less in executing the proper manipulation. Delegated proof of stake
generally offers the chances to stockholders to give their votes to those want to mine
further coming block should be committed in the database. Cryptocurrency holders
will also have the opportunity to select the miner to mine a further block. Stockholders
214 A. K. Yadav and K. Singh

Start

Waiting period is assigned by the network

Node waits for some period of time

No
Node has shortest waiting
period ?

Yes
Mine the block

Mined block is sent to network

All nodes verify the block

No
Block is valid ?

Block is added to the blockchain

Miner is rewarded

End

Fig. 5 Flowchart of PoET algorithm

will choose the delegates which will be responsible for the mining of new block, and
somehow some witnesses are also selected on election basis by currency holders to
perform proper manipulation like searching of nonce and validation of block and
what the delegates need to do is that they will decide how much incentives to be
given to witnesses, and they will also decide the factors like block size, power and
final decision will be made by stakeholders to what delegates will have proposed to
them. Witnesses will change within some time duration or within a week. Witnesses
should perform the transaction allotted within the given time duration. It is all about
the reputation of witnesses; more they perform the transaction efficiently within the
given time duration, more will be their chances to get selection again in the mining
process by selectors (i.e., cryptocurrency holders). DPoS is also increasing more
decentralized fashion as what proposed in PoS was more in a centralized fashion
to whom will have the higher amount of currency will have the more dominating
Comparative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms … 215

Start

Nodes are sequentially ordered

Client sends request to leader node (which is selected in a round robin manner)

Leader node invokes a service operation

Request is multicasted by leading node to the replicas

Replicas execute the request

Replicas send reply to the client

Client waits f+1 different results from different nodes

(f is the maximum number of potentially faulty nodes)

This result is the result of the service operation requested

Endn

Fig. 6 Flowchart of PoET algorithm

effect in the whole network; but in DPoS, it has been modified and made a system
something distributed that is removing the centralization process [15].

3 Comparison of Consensus Algorithms

See Tables 1 and 2.

4 Applications Area

In the recent, blockchain-based application is not only limited financial domain, but
have grown in accounting, voting, energy supply, quality assurance, self-sovereign,
identity (KYC), health care, logistics, agriculture and food, law enforcement, indus-
trial data space, digital identifications, and authentications, gaming and gambling,
216 A. K. Yadav and K. Singh

Table 1 Comparison of permissioned network consensus algorithms

BFT RBFT PBFT PAXOS RAFT
Closed Closed Synchronous Synchronous Synchronous
network network
Used for Used for Smart Smart Smart
business business contract-dependent contract-dependent contract-dependent
working working
based on based on
smart smart
contracts contracts
State The proper State machine Sender, proposer, Collecting selected
machine authorities replication is used and acceptor ledger on some
replication is are handling jointly work agreement to work
used proper work
Good Good Greater Greater Greater
transactional transactional transactional transactional transactional
throughput throughput throughput throughput throughput
Byzantine Byzantine Byzantine faults Crash fault Crash fault
faults faults (i.e.,
hyperledger
body)
Based on Based on It can bear f-1 PAXOS can bear RAFT can bear
traditional traditional tolerance f/2-1 faults f/2-1 faults
notions notions

Table 2 Comparison of permissionless network consensus algorithms

Proof of Work (PoW) Proof of Stake (PoS) Proof of Burn (PoB) PoET
Used for industries Used for industries Used for industries Used for industries
working on financial working on financial working on financial working on financial
level level level level
Using public-key Using RSA algorithm RSA algorithm for RSA algorithm for
encryption (i.e., for encryption encryption encryption
Bitcoin)
Miners having higher It is some election PoB acquires some Person spends some
work done after type selection of cryptocurrencies time and power to
investing higher miners for next block (wealth) to mine new mine new block who
power will have a to be mined block using virtual finishes first the prior
higher probability to resource task will be the next
mine the new block miner
Power inefficient Power efficient Power efficient Power efficient
Open environment Open environment Open environment Open environment
Bitcoin script is used Mostly, Golong is Mostly, Golong is
used used
Comparative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms … 217

government, and organizational governance, job market, market forecasting, media,

and content distribution, network infrastructure, philanthropy transparency and com-
munity services, real state reputation verification and ranking ride, sharing service,
social network, supply chain certification in the food industry. Blockchain has a
problem with scalability and security, which must be tackled.

5 Technical Challenges

Blockchain technology implementation has issues like scalability, block size, number
of transactions per second. It may not apply to high-frequency transactions. The trade-
off between block size and security leads to selfish mining strategy. Miners can hide
their mined block for more revenue in the future. There is a chance of privacy leakage
even when users only make transactions with their public key and the private key.
Users’ real IP addresses could be tracked and a number of blocks are mined per unit
time cannot fulfill the requirement of process of millions of transactions in a real-time
fashion. What will the maximum chain length and the maximum number of miners be
a question? Is there any possibility to go for a centralized system using blockchain?
Larger block size could slow down the propagation speed and lend blockchain branch
is a challenge for many application. There is a possibility of small transactions can
be delayed due to miners give more performance to a high transaction fee technical.

6 Conclusion

Today, due to the emergence of IoT and big data, the huge, diverse, and critical infor-
mation is available over the Internet. The trust over the information is reduced drasti-
cally, causing an increase in security and privacy concern day by day of the industry
and organizations. Blockchain technology has the potential to change upcoming
scenarios of society, industries, and organizations. The blockchain is one of the best-
emerging technologies for ensuring privacy and security by using cryptographic algo-
rithms and hashing. We have discussed the basics of blockchain technology, consen-
sus algorithms, comparison and analysis of important consensus algorithms, and area
of application in this paper. In the future, we will cover the different implementation
platform such as Ethereum and Hyperledger.
 218 A. K. Yadav and K. Singh

References

1. Haber, S., and W. Scott Stornetta. 1991.How to time-stamp a digital document. Journal of
Cryptology 3 (2): 99–111.
2. Nakamoto, S. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, Self-published Paper, May
2008 (Online). Available: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.
3. Bentov, I., A. Gabizon, and A. Mizrahi. 2016. Cryptocurrencies without proof of work. In
International conference on financial cryptography and data security, Christ Church, Barbados,
142–157,Feb 2016.
4. Castro, M., and B. Liskov. 2002. Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery.
ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 20 (4): 398–461.
5. Dai, H., Z. Zheng, and Y. Zhang. Blockchain for ınternet of things: A survey. IEEE Internet of
Things Journal. https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2019.2920987.
6. Back, Adam. Hashcash—A denial of service counter-measure. http://www.cypherspace.org/
hashcash/.
7. Vukoli, M. 2016. The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: Proof-of-work vs. BFT replication.
IFIP WG 11.4 ınternational workshop on open problems in network security iNetSec 2015,
112–125, 29 Oct 2015–29 Oct 2015.
8. Jaag, C., and C. Bach. 2017. Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies opportunities for
postal financial services. In The changing postal and delivery sector, 205–221. Springer: Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46046-8_13.
9. Bentov, I., A. Gabizon, and A. Mizrahi. 2016. Cryptocurrencies without proof of work. Paper
presented at the ınternational conference on financial cryptography and data security, 142–157.
Heidelberg: Springer, February. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_10.
10. Zheng, Z., S. Xie, H.-N. Dai, and H. Wang. 2016. Blockchain challenges and opportunities:
Survey. School of Data and Computer Science, Sun Yat-sen University, Tech. Rep.
11. Sankar, L.S., M. Sindhu, and M. Sethumadhavan. 2017. Survey of consensus protocols on
blockchain applications. In 2017 4th international conference on advanced computing and
communication systems (ICACCS).
12. Larimer, D. 2018. DPOS consensus algorithm—The missing Whitepaper, Steemit (Online).
Available: https://steemit.com/dpos/dantheman/dpos-consensus-algorithm-this-missingwhite-
paper Accessed 03 Feb 2018.
13. Correia, M., G. Veronese, and L. Lung. 2010. Asynchronous Byzantine consensus with 2f +
1 processes. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM symposium on applied computing—SAC ’10.
14. Theng, Z., S. Xie, H. Dai, X. Chen, and H. Wang. 2017. An overview of blockchain technology:
Architecture, consensus, and future trends. In 2017 IEEE international congress on big data
(BigData Congress), Honolulu, 557–564, IEEE.
15. Zheng, Zibin, Shaoan Xie, Hong-Ning Dai, and Xiangping Chen. 2018. Blockchain challenges
and opportunities: A survey. Huaimin Wang International Journal of Web and Grid Services
(IJWGS) 14 (4).

View publication stats