Objective: Comparison of Consensus protocols
Disclaimer: This is meant to be a comparative benchmark of similar implementations, this is not a comment on specific implementations of consensus algorithms.
Constraints;
- No adversarial targets
- Perfect network
- Transaction backlog near empty
- No transaction validation
Parameters;
-
Throughput
-
Time To Finality (TTF)
-
Data size
-
Network awareness
-
Generalized setup;
-
100 active balance accounts
generateAccounts(total) {
accounts = []
for (i = 0; i < total; i++) {
privateKey = crypto.randomBytes(32)
publicKey = eccrypto.getPublic(privateKey)
account = {
// A new random 32-byte private key.
privateKey: privateKey,
// Corresponding uncompressed (65-byte) public key.
publicKey: publicKey,
public: publicKey.toString('hex'),
balance: 1000
}
accounts.push(account)
}
return accounts
}
- 4 node participants (different implementation for each iteration)
generateNodes(total, accounts) {
nodes = []
for (i = 0; i < total; i++) {
node = {
id: i,
hash: sha256(i),
stake: getRandomInt(1000),
accounts: accounts,
txPool: [],
txPoolHashes: [], //Avalanche
finalizedTransactions: [], //Avalance, EC
finalizedTransactionHashes: [], //Avalance
totalTransactions: 0, //Avalance, EC
totalTime: 0,
startTime: new Date().getTime() //Avalance, EC
}
nodes.push(node)
}
return nodes
}
- 50 new transactions randomly assigned to nodes every 500 miliseconds
generateTransaction(from, to, node) {
transaction = {
from: from.public,
to: to.public,
value: getRandomInt(from.balance),
timestamp: new Date().getTime(),
confidence: 0 //Avalance
}
var msg = crypto.createHash("sha256").update(JSON.stringify(transaction)).digest();
eccrypto.sign(from.privateKey, msg).then(function(sig) {
transaction.sig = sig.toString('hex')
transaction.hash = crypto.createHash("sha256").update(JSON.stringify(transaction)).digest().toString('hex');
node.txPool.push(transaction)
node.txPoolHashes.push(transaction.hash)
});
}
#Proof of Work
Constraints;
- 1 second block times
- Maximum 5000 total block value
Observations;
- Averaged ~60 Transactions Per Second
- No finality, longest chain ~3 minutes
- 3.975 KB / transaction
- Full awareness not required
Comments;
- Transaction backlog increasing
#Proof of Authority
Constraints;
- Randomly genesis assigned validators
- 5000 total block value
Observations;
- 1/4 validators ~90 TPS, 2/4 validators ~120, 3/4 validators ~180
- No finality, longest chain ~1 minute
- 1.887 KB / transaction
- Validator only awareness required
Comments;
- Direct correlation between validator / nodes, the higher the validator ratio the higher the throughput
#Proof of Stake
Constraints;
- Classical implementation
- Stake only contribution
- 5000 total block value
Observations;
- ~400 TPS
- Finality after ~1 second
- 3.652 KB / transaction
- Full network awareness required (with this implementation)
#Avalanche
Constraints;
- n & k randomly selected each meta test
- Confidence 1 assigned for existing transaction pool, 2 assigned for finalization
- Confidence 2/3 nodes required
Observations;
- ~500 TPS
- Finality after ~1 second
- 1.196 KB / transaction
- Partial network awareness required
#Eventual Consistency
Constraints;
- Stake only contribution
Observations;
- ~900 TPS
- Finality after ~1 second
- 0.927 KB / transaction
- Full network awareness required
#Results
While we are happy with the throughput of EC, it suffers the same problems of other gossip based implementations, in that it needs full network awareness. Our Avalanche test showed slightly less throughput, but a considerably higher decentralization score.
We will use the latest research available to reincorporate into our design, we believe a similar gossip based function of n/k such as Avalanche combined with the Eventual Consistency Consensus will be able to give us the right mix of throughput and decentralization.