QPoS: Decentralized Stake-Based Leader and Voter Selection in a PBFT System With Mobile Voters
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
Both Proof of Stake (PoS) and Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) consensus schemes for permissioned blockchains incur the risk of centralization of voting power in the hands of a small number of wealthy voters. In this work, we present Qualified Proof of Stake (QPoS) scheme which alleviates centralization by rewarding truthful behavior of both voters and leaders, and penalizing their untruthful behavior. Leaders are elected according to the current stake which gives preference to more trustworthy nodes. Nodes with low stake at the end of a round which consists of multiple PBFT voting cycles are excluded from voting in subsequent rounds, while nodes with sufficient stake may leave the network temporarily without losing their stake. We consider multiple node classes with different voting behavior and model them using embedded Markov Chain which corresponds to Semi Markov Process (SMP) in order to determine system performance. Our results show the interaction of class populations, voting behavior, and mobility with round size, and show notable stake-based prioritization among the nodes for selection of PBFT leaders. Moreover, we show that higher proportion of well behaved nodes and shorter voting rounds are needed to achieve consensus with high probability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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