Our great sponsors
-
bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
Analysis of Bitcoin's current and future transaction throughput bottlenecks.
-
quantificationOfConsensusProtocolSecurity
A methodology and application for quantifying the security of cryptocurrency consensus protocols.
-
SurveyJS
Open-Source JSON Form Builder to Create Dynamic Forms Right in Your App. With SurveyJS form UI libraries, you can build and style forms in a fully-integrated drag & drop form builder, render them in your JS app, and store form submission data in any backend, inc. PHP, ASP.NET Core, and Node.js.
-
ValidatedProofOfStake
A pure proof of stake cryptocurrency consensus protocol that uses block validators and minter punishments without lock-in stake.
Hileman is completely wrong here. Pretty sad to see the head of research at blockchain.com get this one so wrong. The choice of consensus protocol does not affect transaction throughput or "capacity" ("capacity" as far as I can tell is not different from throughput in this context). What affects transaction throughput is the size of your transaction data and the limits placed on the blocks that hold that data. You can increase the size of your blocks to increase throughput, but as a result you inherently increase the computing resources required to participate in the network. The larger your blocks, the fewer people will be able to participate, which is one kind of centralization pressure a blockchain can create for itself. Fundamentally, distributed consensus is limited by the speed of light and physical size of the network. There are many ways to increase throughput of a blockchain like Bitcoin's, but they all boil down to reducing the data per transaction or making it more acceptable to increase the amount of data allowed in a block.
This is controversial, but it is false, in my studied opinion. The Bitcoin blockchain is certainly the most secure blockchain, but does this mean proof of work is the most secure consensus protocol? No it doesn't. To explain why, its important to understand what security is and critically, how to quantify it. The security of a consensus protocol is the difficulty of attacking it, which can be measured using the cost of executing a successful attack. The critical piece of this security is that both Proof of Work and Proof of Stake have securities that are proportional to the total value of the currency. The more a currency is worth in total, the more value there is in the system to secure it.
Many proof of stake currencies do require "staking", which is locking up collateral in order to be able to mine. However, not all do. Some simply do not disincentivize minting on multiple chains (like Peercoin), which is a short sighted design flaw. Some PoS systems are Delegated Proof of Stake, which in principle might require locking up collateral, but might instead opt for punishing bad actors by loss of reputation (like seems to be the philosophy of BitShares), which indirectly leads to loss of revenue, rather than direct loss of coins. Other currencies, like my own Validated Proof of Stake might not use locked in stake, but may still have mechanisms to punish certain negative behaviors or outcomes.