This article is based on Dr. K’s “Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake Consensus Mechanisms” University Call Posted on 8/1/23. A full recording of this presentation can be found on YouTube.
Introduction to Consensus Mechanisms
In the world of blockchain, consensus mechanisms play a vital role in maintaining the integrity and functionality of a decentralized network. They ensure that all participants in the network agree on the validity of transactions, thereby preventing double-spending and other fraudulent activities.
Consensus mechanisms are foundational to the security and stability of blockchain networks. They prevent malicious actors from controlling the network and ensure that transactions are processed in a fair and transparent manner. This article highlights the differences between PoW, PoS, and Quai Network’s new Proof-of-Entropy-Minima (PoEM) algorithm, particularly in how they handle potential attacks, such as a 51% attack, and their implications for network control and rule changes.
Proof-of-Work (PoW): Strengths and Limitations
Proof-of-Work (PoW) is a consensus mechanism that requires network participants (miners) to solve complex mathematical problems to order transactions and create new blocks. This computational effort ensures the security and integrity of the network. PoW is the original consensus mechanism used to secure blockchains, and has been used by Bitcoin since its inception.
Strengths of PoW
- Objectivity and Coordination: PoW provides an objective coordinating mechanism, allowing all participants to agree on the state of the network. It’s based on verifiable mathematical principles, making it a robust and reliable system.
- Security Against Attacks: PoW is resilient against attacks that attempt to change the rules of or censor the network. Even if a single entity controls 51% of the hashrate, it doesn’t allow them to change the fundamental rules of the network, only to potentially censor transactions.
- Historical Context: The use of gold as a form of proof-of-work money emphasizes the importance of a physically rare commodity that prevents the money from being debased. This historical perspective provides insights into the underlying principles of PoW.
Limitations of PoW
- Energy Consumption: PoW systems often utilize a disproportionate amount of energy for the utility they provide – Bitcoin, for example, by only being able to process ~5 TPS, uses ~700 kWh of energy per transaction. Energy consumption, while an inherent aspect of PoW consensus, must be optimized to minimize per-transaction energy use.
- Consensus Delays: The method by which Proof-of-Work systems handle two simultaneously-propagated valid blocks lead to significant delays in consensus. These delays, while having a minimal impact on monolithic (single-chain) systems like Bitcoin, create significant challenges when attempting to coordinate a multi-chain PoW system.
Proof-of-Stake (PoS): A Different Approach
Proof-of-Stake (PoS) represents a significant departure from the Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism, introducing a new way to validate transactions and create new blocks. While it offers some advantages, such as reduced energy consumption, it also comes with its own set of shortcomings.
In a PoS system, validators are chosen to create new blocks based on the number of coins they hold and are willing to “stake” as collateral. Unlike PoW, where the consensus is reached through computational effort, PoS relies on economic incentives and penalties to ensure network integrity.
Advantages of Proof-of-Stake
- Reduced Energy Consumption: Unlike Proof-of-Work, energy expenditure is not inherent to the process of validating blocks. This allows for minimal energy use per transaction, even in low-throughput chains.
Shortcomings of Proof-of-Stake
- Data Propagation Challenges: Unlike PoW, where data propagation almost always occurs in one “round”, PoS always requires multiple rounds to achieve consensus. This can lead to delays and complexities in reaching agreement across the network.
- Subjectivity in Consensus: PoS introduces a level of subjectivity into the consensus process. Unlike the objective mathematical principles in PoW, PoS relies on social consensus mechanisms. If the majority of validators decide to change the state of the network, the immutability of the system can be compromised.
- Potential for Centralization: The subjective nature of PoS, alongside its incentive to allocate stake to a pool, opens the door for potential government intervention. For example, if a supermajority or quorum is controlled by exchanges, governmental authorities could influence decisions, such as rolling back or censoring transactions.
- Comparison with Historical Monetary Systems: Drawing parallels with the transition from a gold-based monetary system to a Federal Reserve system, PoS can be seen as a move from an objective standard to a more subjective and potentially manipulable one. This historical perspective underscores the potential risks and challenges of PoS.
Introducing Proof-of-Entropy-Minima (PoEM): Improving Upon PoW
The evolution of blockchain consensus mechanisms has seen various attempts to improve upon the original Proof-of-Work model. Proof-of-Stake emerged as an alternative, aiming to address some of the inefficiencies of PoW. However, PoS introduced its own set of challenges, including the need for multiple rounds of data propagation and a purely subjective approach to consensus. Proof-of-Entropy-Minima (PoEM) represents a return to the roots of objectivity, building upon the strengths of PoW while addressing its limitations.
- Instantaneous Fork Resolution: Fork resolution has been a significant challenge in blockchain systems. PoW’s occasional prolonged uncertainty in resolving forks made it unreliable for achieving consensus with multiple blockchains. PoS, on the other hand, necessitated multiple rounds of propagation for each block, leading to inefficiencies. PoEM employs the concept of intrinsic block weight to enable all nodes to instantly and deterministically select the next block in the sequence. By measuring each hash’s full weight, PoEM allows for a fair and accurate comparison of all blocks, resolving conflicts across all chains simultaneously. This approach ensures that miners are always certain of the block that all nodes will agree upon, resulting in the most efficient possible utilization of computational resources.
- Coordinating Infinite Execution Shards: PoW’s occasional time delay in establishing consensus imposes a hard limit on the number of execution shards a network can coordinate. PoS did not adequately address this limitation, leaving a gap in the ability to scale and coordinate multiple chains. PoEM’s deterministic fork resolution allows nodes to instantly pick the correct chain tip across various execution shards. By removing the time-based nature of fork resolution, PoEM provides the necessary structure for coordinating infinite execution shards, something neither PoW nor PoS could achieve.
- A Return to Objectivity: While PoS sought to improve upon PoW by introducing a different approach to consensus, it inadvertently reintroduced subjectivity into the system. PoEM, on the other hand, returns to the roots of objectivity that characterized the original vision of blockchain technology. By focusing on intrinsic block weight and deterministic fork resolution, PoEM restores the objective coordinating mechanism that made blockchain a revolutionary technology.
Comparing PoW, PoS, and PoEM
Proof-of-Work (PoW)
- Strengths: Secure and decentralized; relies on computational power; well-tested in networks like Bitcoin.
- Weaknesses: Energy-intensive; occasionally slow fork resolution; limitations in coordinating multiple execution shards.
Proof-of-Stake (PoS)
- Strengths: Low energy usage.
- Weaknesses: Multiple rounds of data propagation; subjective consensus; potential centralization; limitations in data propagation and fork resolution.
Proof-of-Entropy-Minima (PoEM)
- Strengths: Instantaneous fork resolution; ability to coordinate infinite execution shards; objective and deterministic consensus; efficient utilization of resources.
- Weaknesses: Relatively new and requires further real-world testing.
Key Differences
- Fork Resolution: PoW relies on the Heaviest Chain Rule, which occasionally leads to prolonged uncertainty in fork resolution. PoS requires multiple rounds of propagation, while PoEM always offers instantaneous and deterministic fork resolution.
- Scalability: PoW faces limitations in coordinating multiple chains, and PoS compromises security in scaling. PoEM’s ability to coordinate infinite execution shards greatly improves scalability without compromising security.
- Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: PoW introduced objectivity in consensus, while PoS reintroduced subjectivity. PoEM returns to the roots of objectivity, measuring each hash’s full weight and allowing for a fair comparison of all blocks.
- Energy Efficiency: PoW is known for its high energy consumption, while PoS and PoEM offer more energy-efficient solutions.
Join us to build a better blockchain.
Quai Network is an open-source Proof-of-Entropy-Minima blockchain network utilizing the capabilities of merged mining to increase throughput and security. Users of Quai Network will enjoy fast transaction times without compromising decentralization and security. Miners will have competitive mining opportunities across the many blockchains within the network.
Capable of thousands of transactions per second, the Quai Network is a new solution to scalability that is soon to be ready for mainnet release.
Terms & Conditions / Disclaimer
The entirety of the Quai Genesis grants program, including the content of this article, is subject to the Terms and Conditions outlined here.
Opinions, ideas, and statements shared in this update are delivered with numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties which are subject to change over time. There are multiple risk factors, including those related to blockchain, cryptographic systems, and technologies generally, as well Quai’s business, operations and results of operations, that could cause actual results or developments anticipated not to be realized or, even if substantially realized, to fail to achieve any or all of the benefits that could be expected therefrom. We reserve the right to unilaterally, completely, or partially change plans, expectations, and intentions stated herein at any time and for any reason, in our sole and absolute discretion, and we undertake no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments, or otherwise. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO NOT RELY ON, AND DO NOT MAKE ANY FINANCIAL DECISION OR INVESTMENT BASED ON, THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS UPDATE OR ANY OF OUR UPDATES/ARTICLES — INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY SELLING OR TRADING OF QUAI TOKENS, ETHER, OR ANY OTHER CRYPTOGRAPHIC OR BLOCKCHAIN TOKEN, OR THE SECURITIES OF ANY COMPANY.
The views, opinions, and statements made in this update are those of an individual author and not those of any institution, University, or legal entity operating within the jurisdiction of The United States or beyond. There is no association between these views, opinions, and statements and any for-profit or non-profit entity, particularly with Universities, Foundations, and other Agencies located within the United States. Any perception of such an association is purely accidental, and will be rectified immediately if brought to our attention by the reader.