Blockchain, DLT Technology, Mining and Consensus Protocols explained with 50 questions and answers – (6)

23. Is there a protocol for agreeing the protocol?

Bitcoin’s consensus protocol is defined in the Bitcoin source code, which is publicly available for anyone to review and contribute to. This code describes the rules and procedures that nodes must follow to reach consensus on the state of the network.

24. The PoW is said to be a consensus mechanism, but … is it a consensus among whom?

The question of whether the PoW is a consensus-building mechanism among consensus builders is a complex issue with different perspectives.

In a broad sense, one could say yes:

• The miners compete against each other to solve a complex mathematical problem.
• The first miner to solve the problem wins the right to add a new block to the blockchain and receives a reward for doing so.
• This process creates a consensus among miners on the current state of the blockchain.

However, there are some nuances to be taken into account:

• Not all miners participate in the competition for each block. Some miners may choose to join mining pools to combine their hashing power and increase their chances of finding a block.
• The PoW process is not entirely democratic. Miners with more resources (more powerful hardware, more efficient software) are more likely to win the reward.
• The consensus achieved through PoW is not permanent. Theoretically, if a group of miners with a large amount of hashing power decides to attack the network, they could reach an alternative consensus and reverse

25. What is a PoW Proof of Work and what are the alternatives? Is there mining in Proof of Stake?

PoW (Proof of Work) is, as we have already anticipated, a consensus mechanism used to secure the network and validate transactions.

Miners compete against each other to solve a complex mathematical problem, and the first to do so wins the right to add a new block to the blockchain and receives a reward in cryptocurrencies.

26. Are there other consensus mechanisms than “PoW”?

Yes, there are other consensus mechanisms, which we will discuss below.

Si te ha interesado este artículo no dudes en leer:

How to choose the right platform to create or issue a token?

Criteria for selecting the appropriate DLT technology platform for a token: Security, Scalability, Interoperability ...

27. Pros and Cons of the main consensus mechanisms in Blockchain Networks

Consensus mechanisms are fundamental to the functioning of Blockchain technology. These consensus mechanisms allow participants to reach agreement on the status of the registry.

There are different consensus mechanisms with their own advantages and disadvantages.

The following is a summary of the pros and cons of the main consensus mechanisms:

28. Proof of Work (PoW) Pros and Cons:

Pros:

• Security: PoW is a highly secure mechanism that protects the network against attacks and tampering.
• Decentralisation: PoW is a decentralised process, which means that no single entity controls the network.
• Transparency: The PoW process is transparent and

Cons:

• Power consumption: PoW consumes a large amount of
• Centralisation of mining: Mining has become increasingly centralised, with a small number of large mining groups controlling a large part of the network’s hashing power.
• Scalability: PoW can be a scalable consensus mechanism, but its efficiency decreases as the size of the network increases.

29.  Proof of Stake or “PoS”:

In PoS, participants “stake” their cryptocurrencies for the opportunity to validate transactions and earn rewards. PoS consumes less energy than PoW and is more scalable.

Pros:

• Energy efficiency: PoS consumes much less energy than
• Scalability: PoS is a more scalable consensus mechanism than
• Security: PoS is considered a secure consensus mechanism, although it is still relatively new and has not yet been tested in large-scale networks.

Cons:

• Centralisation: PoS may be susceptible to centralisation, depending on how the system is designed.
• Risk of Sybil attacks: PoS can be vulnerable to Sybil attacks, where a single actor creates multiple fake identities to gain more voting power.
• Long-term safety: The long-term safety of PoS is not yet fully proven.

30. Proof of Authority, or “PoA”:

In PoA, transaction validation is performed by a group of pre-selected entities. PoA is more efficient than PoW and PoS, but is less secure and decentralised.

Pros:

• Efficiency: PoA is a very efficient consensus mechanism.
• Scalability: PoA is a highly scalable consensus mechanism.
• Low power consumption: PoA consumes very little

Cons:

• Centralisation: PoA is a highly centralised consensus mechanism.
• Lack of transparency: The PoA process is neither transparent nor
• Less secure: PoA is considered a less secure consensus mechanism than PoW or PoS.

31.  Proof of Storage (PoSt) Proof of Storage:

In PoSt, participants “gamble” disk storage space for the opportunity to validate transactions and earn rewards. PoSt is more efficient than PoW and PoS, and is more resistant to centralisation.

Pros:

• Energy efficiency: PoSt consumes much less energy than
• Scalability: PoSt is a scalable consensus mechanism.
• Resistance to centralisation: PoSt is more resistant to centralisation than PoW or PoS.

Cons:

• Complexity: PoSt is a complex consensus mechanism.
  • Risk of Sybil attacks: PoSt may be vulnerable to Sybil attacks. Sybil attacks are a type of attack in which a single actor creates multiple fake identities to gain more voting power or control in a system. In the context of distributed logging technologies (DLTs) and the Proof of Storage (PoSt) consensus mechanism, Sybil attacks can be a significant problem for the following reasons:

1.  Manipulation of consensus:

In PoSt, participants “gamble” their storage space for the chance to validate transactions and earn rewards. Sybil attacks could allow a single actor to control a large amount of fake storage space, giving it disproportionate voting power in the consensus process. This could allow it to manipulate the consensus and make decisions for its own benefit, to the detriment of other honest participants.

2.  Efficiency reduction:

If a malicious actor controls a large amount of fake storage space, this could reduce the efficiency of the PoSt system. This is because the system would have to check a large amount of irrelevant and fake data, which would increase the time and resources needed to reach consensus.

Long-term safety: The long-term safety of PoSt is not yet fully proven.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also be interested in reading the next one:

Blockchain, Tecnología DLT, Minería y Protocolos de Consenso explicado con 50 preguntas y respuestas (5).