A Survey on Consensus Protocols and Attacks on Blockchain Technology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current era, blockchain has approximately 30 consensus algorithms. This architecturally distributed database stores data in an encrypted form with multiple checks, including elliptical curve cryptography (ECC) and Merkle hash tree. Additionally, many researchers aim to implement a public key infrastructure (PKI) cryptography mechanism to boost the security of blockchain-based data management. However, the issue is that many of these are required for advanced cryptographic protocols. For all consensus protocols, security features are required to be discussed because these consensus algorithms have recently been attacked by address resolution protocols (ARP), distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS), and sharding attacks in a permission-less blockchain. The existence of a byzantine adversary is perilous, and is involved in these ongoing attacks. Considering the above issues, we conducted an informative survey based on the consensus protocol attack on blockchain through the latest published article from IEEE, Springer, Elsevier, ACM, Willy, Hindawi, and other publishers. We incorporate various methods involved in blockchain. Our main intention is to gain clarity from earlier published articles to elaborate numerous key methods in terms of a survey article.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it