IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v12y2020i8p122-d388924.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hybrid Consensus Algorithm Based on Modified Proof-of-Probability and DPoS

Author

Listed:
  • Baocheng Wang

    (School of Information Science and Technology, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, China)

  • Zetao Li

    (School of Information Science and Technology, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, China)

  • Haibin Li

    (Department of Computer and Software Engineering, Shandong College of Electronic Technology, Jinan 250200, China)

Abstract

As the core of blockchain technology, the consensus algorithm plays an important role in determining the security, data consistency, and efficiency of blockchain systems. The existing mainstream consensus algorithm is experiencing difficulties satisfying the needs of efficiency, security, and decentralization in real-world scenarios. This paper proposes a hybrid consensus algorithm based on modified Proof-of-Probability and Delegated Proof-of-Stake. In this method, the work of block generation and validation is, respectively, completed by the nodes using the modified Proof-of-Probability consensus algorithm and Delegated Proof-of-Stake consensus algorithm. When a transaction occurs, the system sends several target hash values to the whole network. Each modified Proof-of-Probability node has a different sorting algorithm, so they have different mining priorities. Every time a hash is decrypted by a modified Proof-of-Probability node, the modulo operation is done to the value of nonce, which is then compared with the expected value given by the supernode selected by the Delegated Proof-of-Stake nodes. If they are not the same, the Proof-of-Probability node enters the waiting time and the other Proof-of-Probability nodes continue to mine. By adopting two consensus algorithms, the malicious nodes must control more than 51% of the nodes that adopt the two consensus algorithms, at the same time, to effectively attack the system, that is, they must have more than 51% of the computing power and more than 51% of the tokens. This not only increases the cost of malicious attacks, but also reduces waste of computing power. In addition, the efficiency of the DPoS algorithm makes up for the deficiency of the PoP algorithm in system efficiency, and the mining behavior based on probability in the PoP algorithm also significantly weakens the ability of supernodes in the DPoS algorithm to conduct monopoly behavior or other malicious behaviors. In a word, the combination of the two algorithms makes the system perform better in terms of security, system efficiency, and decentralization.

Suggested Citation

  • Baocheng Wang & Zetao Li & Haibin Li, 2020. "Hybrid Consensus Algorithm Based on Modified Proof-of-Probability and DPoS," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:122-:d:388924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/12/8/122/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/12/8/122/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Parminder Singh & Anand Nayyar & Avinash Kaur & Uttam Ghosh, 2020. "Blockchain and Fog Based Architecture for Internet of Everything in Smart Cities," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Nicolas Houy, 2014. "It will cost you nothing to "kill" a proof-of-stake crypto-currency," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(2), pages 1038-1044.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Uttam Ghosh & Deepak Tosh & Nawab Muhammad Faseeh Qureshi & Ali Kashif Bashir & Al-Sakib Khan Pathan & Zhaolong Ning, 2022. "Cyber-Physical Systems: Prospects, Challenges and Role in Software-Defined Networking and Blockchains," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-2, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uttam Ghosh & Deepak Tosh & Nawab Muhammad Faseeh Qureshi & Ali Kashif Bashir & Al-Sakib Khan Pathan & Zhaolong Ning, 2022. "Cyber-Physical Systems: Prospects, Challenges and Role in Software-Defined Networking and Blockchains," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-2, December.
    2. Nicola Dimitri, 2022. "The Economics of Consensus in Algorand," FinTech, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Jian Wang & Qianggang Wang & Niancheng Zhou & Yuan Chi, 2017. "A Novel Electricity Transaction Mode of Microgrids Based on Blockchain and Continuous Double Auction," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    4. Russ, Meir, 2016. "The probable foundations of sustainabilism: Information, energy and entropy based definition of capital, Homo Sustainabiliticus and the need for a “new gold”," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 328-338.
    5. Corbet, Shaen & Lucey, Brian & Urquhart, Andrew & Yarovaya, Larisa, 2019. "Cryptocurrencies as a financial asset: A systematic analysis," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 182-199.
    6. Ioannis Vardopoulos & Maria Papoui-Evangelou & Bogdana Nosova & Luca Salvati, 2023. "Smart ‘Tourist Cities’ Revisited: Culture-Led Urban Sustainability and the Global Real Estate Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-26, February.
    7. Horst Treiblmaier, 2022. "What Is Coming across the Horizon and How Can We Handle It? Bitcoin Scenarios as a Starting Point for Rigorous and Relevant Research," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Hermann Elendner & Simon Trimborn & Bobby Ong & Teik Ming Lee, 2016. "The Cross-Section of Crypto-Currencies as Financial Assets: An Overview," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2016-038, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    9. Nicolas Houy, 2014. "The economics of Bitcoin transaction fees," Working Papers halshs-00951358, HAL.
    10. Jyotir Moy Chatterjee & Le Hoang Son & Srijani Ghatak & Raghvendra Kumar & Manju Khari, 2018. "BitCoin exclusively informational money: a valuable review from 2010 to 2017," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2037-2054, September.
    11. Tarun Chitra, 2019. "Competitive equilibria between staking and on-chain lending," Papers 2001.00919, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    12. Zura Kakushadze & Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, 2018. "CryptoRuble: From Russia with Love," Papers 1801.05760, arXiv.org.
    13. Manash Kumar Mondal & Riman Mandal & Sourav Banerjee & Utpal Biswas & Jerry Chun-Wei Lin & Osama Alfarraj & Amr Tolba, 2023. "Design and Development of a Fog-Assisted Elephant Corridor over a Railway Track," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:122-:d:388924. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.