Unexplored overall Byzantine consensus: Why classic multi-paxos are not used in public blocks
As one of the most successful and acceptable decentralized applications (DAPP) on the Ethereum network, Bitcoin has inspired the spread of other projects to create its own public blockchain. However, despite the success, the algorithm of the Ethereum native, tolerance to Byzantine defects (BFT) is still not suitable for use in traditional public block chains. In this article, we will explore why Classic Multi-Paxos, another widely used consensus algorithm, is not adopted for public blockchain projects.
Problem with bft
Byzantine general consensus (BGC) and its variants, such as Byzantine Damage Tolerance (BFT), are designed to ensure network integrity in the face of malicious actors. However, these algorithms were criticized for their high energy consumption, long block blocks and limited scalability. Show it in perspective:
- Ethereum BFT algorithm requires about 50,000 to 100,000 th / s (Tera-Hashs per second) for consensus, which results in the estimated carbon foot of more than 4 million metric tons per year.
- The average transaction time on the Bitcoin network is about 10 minutes, while the Ethereum network has an average of about 15 seconds.
Why Multi-Paxos isn’t appropriate
Multi-Paxos, which Nick Szabo developed in the late 1990s, is a unanimous algorithm that uses multiple nodes to approve transactions. While it offers advantages such as improving durability and scalability compared to BFT, it also has several disadvantages:
* Evolution : Multiple Paxos can lead to high transaction costs and long blocking times associated with the need for excess testing.
* Energy Efficiency : The algorithm dependence on multiple nodes makes it more with high energy intensity than BFT.
* Security : Multi-Paxos can be vulnerable to attacks because the network has no guarantee.
Satoshi Nakamoto Choice
So why did Satoshi Nakamoto chose tolerance against Byzantine defects (BFT) compared to multi -pacems? The answer lies in energy costs and scalability problems associated with BFT. At that time, Ethereum was still a relatively new project with limited resources.
However, as the project grew up and has become more complicated, it is clear that BFT would have been excessive. The carbon footprint of one Ethereum transaction is approximately 1 to 2 kg (£ 2.2-4.4), which is equivalent to about 200 to 400 kg (440-880 pounds) CO2 per year.
Why Multi-Paxos is not accepted
Despite the energy costs and scalability restrictions, several Paxos still have an interesting solution for certain projects. However, there are several reasons why this is not accepted:
* Limited Scalability : Multi-Paxos is designed to manage a limited number of transactions per second. As the network develops, this restriction is becoming increasingly obvious.
* Complexity : Implementation and maintenance of multi -life can be more complicated than BFT, especially in terms of coordination of node and Byzantine determination.
* Lack of scalability
: While multi-paxos offers better scalability than BFT, it is not enough to take care of the large volumes of transactions that most public blockchestries are experiencing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the classic multi -mate has its advantages, it is still not suitable for traditional public blockchain due to energy costs, scalability and complexity. Ethereum’s natural consensus algorithm high energy consumption makes it more expensive than BFT, which can be used as a base for a large distributed book.
However, the success of projects such as Ethereum shows that alternative consensus algorithms can offer durability, scalability and improved energy efficiency. As long as the blockchain landscape continues to develop, we can see new solutions that better meet the needs of public blockchain.