A Survey on Consensus Protocols and Attacks on Blockchain Technology
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".