Which consensus is more promising, in your opinion?

[eugradus]

Nowadays we have so many different consensus types, like:

- PROOF OF WORK
- PROOF OF STAKE
- DELEGATED PROOF OF STAKE
- PROOF OF CAPACITY
- PROOF OF ELAPSED TIME
- PROOF OF IDENTITY
- PROOF OF AUTHORITY
- PROOF OF ACTIVITY
- BYZANTINE AGREEMENT

And there are probably others who are not even here but are running right now. In your opinion, what is the best?

Or the right question should be, "Are they designed for the specific purpose for which they are committed to delivery, or are they only a way to try to look different with some backup reason behind it?

All of them offer benefits and some lack them, but in your opinion, which one is more promising, and why?

[1714606507]

1714606507

[1714606507]

1714606507

[1714606507]

1714606507

[1714606507]

1714606507

[1714606507]

1714606507

[Z-tight]

In your opinion, what is the best?

Most of these consensus mechanisms in your OP has at least one or all of these, which is it is centralized, permissioned, prone to censorhip, supports identity exposure and has weak security for its blockchain, and the cryptocurrencies that use some of them are small and unsafe. But the BTC proof of work consensus mechanism is decentralized, permissionless, very secure and censorship resistant, because anybody can become a node or a miner without any verification, so which is the best?

[tromp]

Nowadays we have so many different consensus types, like:

- PROOF OF WORK
- PROOF OF STAKE
- DELEGATED PROOF OF STAKE
- PROOF OF CAPACITY
- PROOF OF ELAPSED TIME
- PROOF OF IDENTITY
- PROOF OF AUTHORITY
- PROOF OF ACTIVITY
- BYZANTINE AGREEMENT

And we have these coin distribution methods:

- PROOF OF WORK
- PROOF OF CAPACITY

with the latter hampered by proofs not committing to the transaction history (the miner signs separately for that, and a big enough collusion of recent miners can in fact freely rewrite history).

[eugradus]

In your opinion, what is the best?

Most of these consensus mechanisms in your OP has at least one or all of these, which is it is centralized, permissioned, prone to censorhip, supports identity exposure and has weak security for its blockchain, and the cryptocurrencies that use some of them are small and unsafe. But the BTC proof of work consensus mechanism is decentralized, permissionless, very secure and censorship resistant, because anybody can become a node or a miner without any verification, so which is the best?

I totally agree with you. And what if we bring it to the TradFi world, where people need to do day-to-day shopping? How can we integrate it?

[taufik123]

In your opinion, what is the best?

-snip-
But the BTC proof of work consensus mechanism is decentralized, permissionless, very secure and censorship resistant, because anybody can become a node or a miner without any verification, so which is the best?

That is the advantage of the POW Consensus used by Bitcoin. But many are against the use of POW Consensus on the Bitcoin blockchain, they say that the use of POW energy is greater and more wasteful, and also has an impact on the environment.

But in fact, currently, the use of large renewable energy has begun to be implemented.
And also some issues about triggering Global warming have also been broken with the use of more environmentally friendly energy.
Pros and cons will still exist, Bitcoin still maintains the POW consensus because it becomes Bitcoin's identity, is decentralized, and cannot be changed.

The POW Consensus mechanism was introduced by Hal Finney in 2004 and first used by Satoshi Nakamoto on Bitcoin in 2009.


But the OP also forgot to include the Proof Of History (PoH) Consensus used by Blockchain Solana, this consensus system was created to solve the time problem on the blockchain by encoding each passing time into the blockchain technology.
After that, the system will provide historical data of every activity that occurs on the blockchain within a certain time.
This process uses an algorithm called Verifiable Delay Functions (VDF).

https://www.blockchain-council.org/blockchain/what-is-proof-of-history-and-how-does-it-work/

[IShishkin]

Nowadays we have so many different consensus types, like:

- PROOF OF WORK
- PROOF OF STAKE
- DELEGATED PROOF OF STAKE
- PROOF OF CAPACITY
- PROOF OF ELAPSED TIME
- PROOF OF IDENTITY
- PROOF OF AUTHORITY
- PROOF OF ACTIVITY
- BYZANTINE AGREEMENT

And there are probably others who are not even here but are running right now. In your opinion, what is the best?

Or the right question should be, "Are they designed for the specific purpose for which they are committed to delivery, or are they only a way to try to look different with some backup reason behind it?

All of them offer benefits and some lack them, but in your opinion, which one is more promising, and why?

Before writing a long list of "many different consensus types", you should answer the question "what is consensus?"

[IShishkin]

They are all used by various platforms meaning they all have their uses and their limitations it all depends on your preference...

The only true use-case of the true consensus is building a trustless decentralized network where there is no central authority.

The only purpose of "proof of X" pseudo-consensuses is to conceal centralisation.

Private businesses might prefer a "centralised consensus" only if they can tolerate the risk related to centralisation and can't afford paying a premium for the decentralisation. Also a private business might be this central authority in this "centralised consensus". Central authority often has an opportunity to build a monopoly and squeeze more revenue out of the market.

[thecodebear]

I mean if you're trying to build a global decentralized platform like Bitcoin then we all know PoW is by far the best. That said, it only really makes sense to have one proof of work blockchain cuz only one is going to be highly secure.


PoS is fine for companies making centralized projects where they do their fundraising by selling the tokens. And that is where the rest of the crypto world has gone.

Both have their uses and are useful for very different things.


The rest are rather rare.

[Synchronice]

Nowadays we have so many different consensus types, like:

- PROOF OF WORK
- PROOF OF STAKE
- DELEGATED PROOF OF STAKE
- PROOF OF CAPACITY
- PROOF OF ELAPSED TIME
- PROOF OF IDENTITY
- PROOF OF AUTHORITY
- PROOF OF ACTIVITY
- BYZANTINE AGREEMENT

And there are probably others who are not even here but are running right now. In your opinion, what is the best?

Or the right question should be, "Are they designed for the specific purpose for which they are committed to delivery, or are they only a way to try to look different with some backup reason behind it?

All of them offer benefits and some lack them, but in your opinion, which one is more promising, and why?

Proof Of Elapsed time follows a lottery system, I'm not personally a fan of it. Proof Of Capacity works in a way that if Youtube wanted, they would conquer the the POC coins in a single day because of their massive storages. I don't know much about the rest of consensus types you've listed.
Overall, the most popular and widely used ones are Proof Of Work and Proof Of Stake. I don't like the idea of Proof Of Stake because it's very capitalistic, like, the one who holds the most, benefits the most and remains the top almost forever, untill his stakes are high. Proof of Work, on another hand, is more competitive and the more you put in, the more you get out, like Rich Piana said once.

[dansus021]

In my opinion, consensus will always have both plus and minus like everything else. But I would prefer if the coin has both of proof of work and proof of stake, just opinion image if Bitcoin has the great system of Proof Of Work right now and combined with Proof of Stake as layer 2 speed and security will be top notch right

[Who is John Galt?]

Or the right question should be, "Are they designed for the specific purpose for which they are committed to delivery, or are they only a way to try to look different with some backup reason behind it?

All of them offer benefits and some lack them, but in your opinion, which one is more promising, and why?

You can see for yourself that most of the little-known types of consensus are used only by one project and do not scale. Perhaps some of them are really useful for a very specific type of task, and therefore no one uses them, but rather, they simply did not show their convenience or other important qualities.

So let's just look at what types of consensus have succeeded.

PoW perfectly proves its success in that Bitcoin is powered by it and still remains the main decentralized digital currency.

PoS is the easiest to use and most common among altcoins, we see it because the vast majority of new projects choose it, despite all its shortcomings.

[IShishkin]

You can see for yourself that most of the little-known types of consensus are used only by one project and do not scale.

A scheme in which a central authority distributes rewards to participants "based on their X" is not a consensus. I think a usage of the word "consensus" in such cases is a mistake.

[rby]

In your opinion, what is the best?

-snip-
But the BTC proof of work consensus mechanism is decentralized, permissionless, very secure and censorship resistant, because anybody can become a node or a miner without any verification, so which is the best?

That is the advantage of the POW Consensus used by Bitcoin. But many are against the use of POW Consensus on the Bitcoin blockchain, they say that the use of POW energy is greater and more wasteful, and also has an impact on the environment.

In every choice of consensus that you make, you have to forfeit one thing in order to enjoy the other. The reason I love the PoW is it's total decentralized nature, while other concensus types have tried to prove that they are decentralized, there has always been some form of decentralization in one way or the other.
I have sometimes wished that bitcoin migrates to prove of stake because of the energy consumption concern, but the most important thing (decentralization) would be lost.

I am in with these two, no matter there number of recent consensus

Nowadays we have so many different consensus types, like:

- PROOF OF WORK
- PROOF OF STAKE

[Cricktor]

How do you prevent the aggregation and centralization of stakers in Proof of Stake (PoS)? In my understanding and reception PoS tends to aggregate quicker and benefit more of it than we see in a beneficial growth of mining pools in Proof of Work (PoW). I admit though, I'm no expert in all details of PoS.

[un_rank]

just opinion image if Bitcoin has the great system of Proof Of Work right now and combined with Proof of Stake as layer 2 speed and security will be top notch right

Bitcoin does not have layers, it just has on chain and off chain, anything on the bitcoin blockchain is subject to the proof of work algorithm, off chain platforms like Lightening network can operate differently, but does not affect the inherent qualities of bitcoin.

Bitcoin has the superior algorithm which has proven to check out on the most important features of decentralization and security, absolutely no need to muddy that with an inferior system.

How do you prevent the aggregation and centralization of stakers in Proof of Stake (PoS)?

You don't.

- Jay -