dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.k_consensus:05_algorithm:start
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.k_consensus:05_algorithm:start [2021/08/09 15:10] murphy |
dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.k_consensus:05_algorithm:start [2022/01/15 18:16] (current) nick |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ====== 4.0 Consensus Platforms ====== | + | ====== K.4 Consensus Platforms ====== |
| - | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.k_consensus | Return to DIDO Consensus ]] | + | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.k_consensus:start| Return to DIDO Consensus ]] |
| <table ConsensusAlorithym> | <table ConsensusAlorithym> | ||
| <caption>Crossreference os [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:d:dido_platform|DIDO Platforms]] with Alogrithms.</caption> | <caption>Crossreference os [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:d:dido_platform|DIDO Platforms]] with Alogrithms.</caption> | ||
| - | ^ Consensus Alorithym ^ Platform Examples ^ Pros ^ Cons ^ Type ^ | + | ^ Consensus Algorithm ^ Platform Examples ^ Pros ^ Cons ^ Type ^ |
| ^ [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.k_consensus:02_mechanism:cellular ]] | <WRAP> | ^ [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.k_consensus:02_mechanism:cellular ]] | <WRAP> | ||
| //Theoretical//</WRAP> |<WRAP> | //Theoretical//</WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| NEO</WRAP> |<WRAP> | NEO</WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| * Generating a new block on the chain takes between 15 and 20 seconds. | * Generating a new block on the chain takes between 15 and 20 seconds. | ||
| - | * The transaction throughput is close to 1,000 TPS. NEO hopes to reach 100,000 TPS, which would allow the network to support large-scale commercial applications. | + | * The transaction [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:t:thruput|throughput]] is close to 1,000 TPS. NEO hopes to reach 100,000 TPS, which would allow the network to support large-scale commercial applications.\\ |
| * No expenditure of energy needed (unlike the Proof-of-Work [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:c:consensus_algorithm|consensus algorithm]]). | * No expenditure of energy needed (unlike the Proof-of-Work [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:c:consensus_algorithm|consensus algorithm]]). | ||
| * Total finality for transactions after their [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:c:confirmation|confirmation]]. | * Total finality for transactions after their [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:c:confirmation|confirmation]]. | ||
| * There are no forks on the NEO [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:blockchain|blockchain]]. | * There are no forks on the NEO [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:blockchain|blockchain]]. | ||
| + | |||
| [[https://coinrivet.com/delegated-byzantine-fault-tolerance-dbft-explained/]] | [[https://coinrivet.com/delegated-byzantine-fault-tolerance-dbft-explained/]] | ||
| </WRAP> |<WRAP> | </WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
| Steem, EOS, BitShares, Steemit, Lisk, Ark | Steem, EOS, BitShares, Steemit, Lisk, Ark | ||
| </WRAP> |<WRAP> | </WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| - | * Scalability and speed: It provides faster processing of transactions than PoW and PoS. This is probably the most meaningful advantage: DPoS makes sense for many applications that require a high level of scalability. | + | * [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:s:scalable|Scalability]] and speed: It provides faster processing of transactions than PoW and PoS. This is probably the most meaningful advantage: DPoS makes sense for many applications that require a high level of scalability. |
| * Better distribution of rewards: Theoretically, people will elect only those delegates who give them the most rewards, so everyone, including a casual user, benefits. (This democratization is another aspect supporters cite when noting that DPoS is more decentralized than either PoS or PoW.) | * Better distribution of rewards: Theoretically, people will elect only those delegates who give them the most rewards, so everyone, including a casual user, benefits. (This democratization is another aspect supporters cite when noting that DPoS is more decentralized than either PoS or PoW.) | ||
| * Real-time voting security: Voters can immediately detect malicious actions, and the malicious delegate can be voted out of the system. | * Real-time voting security: Voters can immediately detect malicious actions, and the malicious delegate can be voted out of the system. | ||
| Line 33: | Line 34: | ||
| * Less hardware: Participants don’t need costly, specialized equipment. A regular computer is powerful enough. | * Less hardware: Participants don’t need costly, specialized equipment. A regular computer is powerful enough. | ||
| * An incentive to “behave”: [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:block_producers|Block producers]] — delegates — can be voted out at any time, so the potential for loss of income and reputation provides a hedge against bad behavior. | * An incentive to “behave”: [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:block_producers|Block producers]] — delegates — can be voted out at any time, so the potential for loss of income and reputation provides a hedge against bad behavior. | ||
| - | * Flexibility: Because DPoS unlinks the election of block producers from the block production itself, it allows for a more creative and flexible approach to solving problems with either, in isolation, a recent Coinmonks piece explains. It provides a foundation for implementing “interesting governance models in blockchain applications.” | + | * Flexibility: Because DPoS unlinks the election of block producers from the block production itself, it allows for a more creative and flexible approach to solving problems with either, in isolation, a recent Coinmonks piece explains. It provides a foundation for implementing “interesting [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:g:governance]] models in blockchain applications.” |
| [[https://www.verypossible.com/insights/pros-and-cons-of-the-delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus-model]] | [[https://www.verypossible.com/insights/pros-and-cons-of-the-delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus-model]] | ||
| </WRAP> |<WRAP> | </WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| * It's easier to organize an attack: Because fewer people are in charge of keeping the network alive, it’s easier to organize a “51 percent” attack. | * It's easier to organize an attack: Because fewer people are in charge of keeping the network alive, it’s easier to organize a “51 percent” attack. | ||
| - | * The rich may get richer: People’s vote strength is determined by how many tokens they have, which means that people who own more tokens will influence the network more than people who own very few. | + | * The rich may get richer: People’s vote strength is determined by how many [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:t:tokens|tokens]] they have, which means that people who own more tokens will influence the network more than people who own very few. |
| * Apathy can kill: Without a large number of engaged users, the system will not function as intended. (That’s a bit like any democracy or democratic republic.) | * Apathy can kill: Without a large number of engaged users, the system will not function as intended. (That’s a bit like any democracy or democratic republic.) | ||
| - | * Delegates could form cartels: Delegates can organize into cartels by concentrating the role of validation in a smaller number of hands. This not only makes it less decentralized, but it also makes it less resilient. | + | * Delegates could form cartels: Delegates can organize into cartels by concentrating the role of [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:v:validation|validation]] in a smaller number of hands. This not only makes it less decentralized, but it also makes it less resilient. |
| * This notion that DPoS is not truly decentralized may be the most notable criticism of all. Yes, DPoS is less centralized than some other consensus protocols; nevertheless, power is still concentrated in the hands of a handful of users. DPoS sacrifices decentralization for scalability, critics say. | * This notion that DPoS is not truly decentralized may be the most notable criticism of all. Yes, DPoS is less centralized than some other consensus protocols; nevertheless, power is still concentrated in the hands of a handful of users. DPoS sacrifices decentralization for scalability, critics say. | ||
| [[https://www.verypossible.com/insights/pros-and-cons-of-the-delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus-model]] | [[https://www.verypossible.com/insights/pros-and-cons-of-the-delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus-model]] | ||
| Line 65: | Line 66: | ||
| Waves</WRAP> |<WRAP> | Waves</WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| * Validate With Less Stake - In a PoS network, the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:block_validators | * Validate With Less Stake - In a PoS network, the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:block_validators | ||
| - | |validators]] are picked based on their stake. That may challenge the fairness of the system where some nodes are chosen repeatedly. With LPoS, you can boost your chances of being picked by accepting a lease from other users. | + | |validators]] are picked based on their stake. That may challenge the fairness of the system where some [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:n:node|nodes]] are chosen repeatedly. With LPoS, you can boost your chances of being picked by accepting a lease from other users. |
| * Earn with Fewer Tokens- LPoS allows minor token holders to earn by leasing their limited tokens to [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:f:full|full node]] owners. Token holders get a percentage from the profit generated by the full node. | * Earn with Fewer Tokens- LPoS allows minor token holders to earn by leasing their limited tokens to [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:f:full|full node]] owners. Token holders get a percentage from the profit generated by the full node. | ||
| * Control Over Funds - Leased tokens are locked in the leaser's [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:bitcoin|wallet]]. They can neither be traded nor transferred. While the leaser can't spend the locked funds, they can decide to stop the lease and make the leased money available for spending. | * Control Over Funds - Leased tokens are locked in the leaser's [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:b:bitcoin|wallet]]. They can neither be traded nor transferred. While the leaser can't spend the locked funds, they can decide to stop the lease and make the leased money available for spending. | ||
| Line 102: | Line 103: | ||
| * High throughput; scalable | * High throughput; scalable | ||
| * No [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:m:mining|mining]] mechanism like in PoW, PoA uses identity as the sole verification of the authority to validate, | * No [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:m:mining|mining]] mechanism like in PoW, PoA uses identity as the sole verification of the authority to validate, | ||
| - | * PoA is suited for both private networks and public networks | + | * PoA is suited for both [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:p:private_network|private networks]] and [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:p:public_network|public networks]] |
| * PoA only allows non-consecutive block approval from any one validator, meaning that the risk of serious damage is minimized. | * PoA only allows non-consecutive block approval from any one validator, meaning that the risk of serious damage is minimized. | ||
| [[https://tokens-economy.gitbook.io/consensus/chain-based-hybrid-models/proof-of-authority-poa]] | [[https://tokens-economy.gitbook.io/consensus/chain-based-hybrid-models/proof-of-authority-poa]] | ||
| Line 123: | Line 124: | ||
| * Some say that PoB is not really eco-friendly because the Bitcoins being burned are generated through PoW mining, which requires lots of resources. | * Some say that PoB is not really eco-friendly because the Bitcoins being burned are generated through PoW mining, which requires lots of resources. | ||
| * Not proven to work on larger scales. More testing is needed to confirm its efficiency and security. | * Not proven to work on larger scales. More testing is needed to confirm its efficiency and security. | ||
| - | * The verification of the work done by miners tends to be delayed. It is not as fast as in Proof of Work blockchains. | + | * The verification of the work done by miners tends to be delayed. It is not as fast as in [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:p:proof_of_work|Proof of Work]] blockchains. |
| * The process of burning a coin is not always transparent or easily verifiable by the average user. | * The process of burning a coin is not always transparent or easily verifiable by the average user. | ||
| [[https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/proof-of-burn-explained]] | [[https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/proof-of-burn-explained]] | ||
| Line 131: | Line 132: | ||
| Burstcoin and SpaceMint, IPFS</WRAP> |<WRAP> | Burstcoin and SpaceMint, IPFS</WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| * Similar to PoW but uses space instead of computation. Thus much environmental friendly. | * Similar to PoW but uses space instead of computation. Thus much environmental friendly. | ||
| - | * Can be used for malware detection, by determining whether the L1 cache of a processor is empty (e.g., has enough space to evaluate the PoSpace routine without cache misses) or contains a routine that resisted being evicted. | + | * Can be used for malware detection, by determining whether the L1 cache of a [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:p:start|processor]] is empty (e.g., has enough space to evaluate the PoSpace routine without cache misses) or contains a routine that resisted being evicted. |
| * Can be used for anti-spam measures and denial of service attack prevention. | * Can be used for anti-spam measures and denial of service attack prevention. | ||
| * PoC can use any regular hard drives including those with Android-based systems. | * PoC can use any regular hard drives including those with Android-based systems. | ||
| Line 149: | Line 150: | ||
| Hyperledger Sawtooth, Resource-Efficient Mining (REM)</WRAP> |<WRAP> | Hyperledger Sawtooth, Resource-Efficient Mining (REM)</WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| * PoET is a substantial improvement in the efficiency of proof of work systems. Simultaneously, it also provides a great solution to the “Random Leader Selection Problem” without being resource-intensive or requiring complex staking mechanics and incentive structures necessary with proof of stake consensus. | * PoET is a substantial improvement in the efficiency of proof of work systems. Simultaneously, it also provides a great solution to the “Random Leader Selection Problem” without being resource-intensive or requiring complex staking mechanics and incentive structures necessary with proof of stake consensus. | ||
| - | * PoET is also an excellent consensus mechanism for permissioned networks, which is why it is the go-to consensus mechanism for Hyperledger Sawtooth. On top of that, it scales efficiently and can be used as a “plug and play” model for testing environments with Hyperledger Sawtooth. | + | * PoET is also an excellent consensus mechanism for [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:p:permissioned|permissioned networks]], which is why it is the go-to consensus mechanism for Hyperledger Sawtooth. On top of that, it scales efficiently and can be used as a “plug and play” model for testing environments with Hyperledger Sawtooth. |
| [[https://blockonomi.com/proof-of-elapsed-time-consensus/]] | [[https://blockonomi.com/proof-of-elapsed-time-consensus/]] | ||
| </WRAP> |<WRAP> | </WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| Line 196: | Line 197: | ||
| Bitcoin, [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:litecoin|Litecoin]], ZCash, Primecoin, Monero, Vertcoin</WRAP> |<WRAP> | Bitcoin, [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:litecoin|Litecoin]], ZCash, Primecoin, Monero, Vertcoin</WRAP> |<WRAP> | ||
| * Proof of work models make blockchain networks more difficult and costly to attack. | * Proof of work models make blockchain networks more difficult and costly to attack. | ||
| - | * Proof of work models reward miners with both a block reward and a share of transaction fees. | + | * Proof of work models reward miners with both a block reward and a share of [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:t:transaction_fees|transaction fees]]. |
| * Proof of work models often results in more decentralized networks. | * Proof of work models often results in more decentralized networks. | ||
| * Less opportunity for 51% attack | * Less opportunity for 51% attack | ||
| Line 211: | Line 212: | ||
| </table> | </table> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <color blue><todo @char> Do general review of this page </todo></color> \\ | ||
| + | <color blue><todo @char> Decide if it's worthwhile to fix the unordered lists so they look better in pdfexport </todo></color> | ||
| /**=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | /**=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | ||
dido/public/ra/xapend/xapend.k_consensus/05_algorithm/start.1628536239.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/08/09 15:10 by murphy
