Downsides of Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake, explained

At Cointelegraph, writer Chris Jones explains the potential downsides of Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake, in light of recent developments.

Under headings such as the types of nodes and alternatives, efficiency of consensus mechanisms, current challenges for validating transactions, and PPoC benefits for users, Jones considers topical and timely issues.

What are the main types of nodes in existence?

Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake are arguably the best-known consensus mechanisms — but new ones are continually emerging. PoW blockchains have long dominated the cryptocurrency landscape, with both Bitcoin and Ethereum using this model. This means miners are responsible for securing the network and validating transactions — and they get rewarded with new coins as a result.

However, a common criticism surrounding Proof-of-Work relates to how much energy it uses, and the impact such blockchains have on the environment. Miners need to use vast amounts of computing power to solve arbitrary mathematical equations. More advanced hardware has been required as the industry matured, with electricity usage surging too.

This has led Proof-of-Stake to be regarded as a more eco-friendly approach. Miners are replaced by validators — nodes that have a financial stake in the smooth running of the network. While proponents claim this can use 99% less energy than PoW, some fear PoS can lead to greater levels of centralisation and censorship. Ethereum is currently in the process of moving to this consensus mechanism during The Merge — and it’ll be interesting to see how this high-stakes experiment pans out.

A new approach is known as Published Proof-of-Contribution, otherwise known as PPoC for short. Here, every single participant has a role to play in ensuring the ecosystem is decentralized, democratic and well-governed.

Read more.

© 2023 Blockchain Ireland