Assessment of Consensus Mechanisms out of Proof-of-Stake and Proof-of-Work.

Blockchain technology relies on the use of consensus mechanisms to ensure that a large number of computers can come to the consensus of what is true in a network. Professionally the most common are Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS). PoW is one that relies on the intense processing power whereas PoS relies on the possession and staking of coins.

Nevertheless, with the continued expansion of blockchain, an increasing number of individuals no longer rely on the two systems. In my opinion, this matters since there cannot be a solution to all blockchain issues with one approach.

One of them is Proof-of-Authority (PoA). This system uses validators who are trusted and known in order to verify the transactions. These validators are selected on reputation, and not computing power or token ownership. PoA is also quick, inexpensive and energy efficient.

Image Source

The latter is highly suitable to private blockchains or enterprise. Nevertheless, it is not so decentralized, as the network is controlled by a small number of individuals. PoA, in my view is applicable in situations where trust already exists, and not in open public networks.

Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) is another essential system. In this case, users elect few delegates that authenticate transactions on their behalf. This is a faster method than PoS and has high transaction speed. This model is applied in platforms such as EOS.

The lack is that the power can be concentrated in a few hands of representatives, thus making it less fair. Nevertheless, I consider DPoS as a worthy tradeoff between speed and participation by the community.

Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) Practical systems such as Tendermint are based on agreement by exchange of messages between validators. These systems are highly secured and irreversible i.e. once a transaction is declared to be true, it cannot be undone.

They can be used in the smaller networks, but become inefficient with a large number of validators. These approaches impress me in the field of financial and institutional applications.

Some more recent concepts have been suggested as well such as Proof- of- History (PoH) and Avalanche consensus. PoH incorporates a cryptographic clock to enhance speed whereas Avalanche employs repeated random sampling to arrive at an agreement at a fast speed. These systems are designed to address the problem of speed and scalability without compromising the security.

To sum up, the future of blockchain should be the next step beyond Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake. There are weaknesses and strengths of every consensus mechanism.

I believe that the optimal option always lies in the intention of the blockchain. These systems will become more efficient and inclusive as blockchain usage expands and these systems are combined and enhanced.