CipherLabs
/
besu
mirror of https://github.com/hyperledger/besu
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
An enterprise-grade Java-based, Apache 2.0 licensed Ethereum client https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/besu
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
1063 Commits
44 Branches
214 Tags
192 MiB
 
 
Tag: Branch: Tree: 13249a20fd
Branches Tags
${ item.name }
Create tag ${ searchTerm }
Create branch ${ searchTerm }
from '13249a20fd'
${ noResults }
besu/docs/Consensus-Protocols/Comparing-PoA.md

2.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

*[Byzantine fault tolerant]: Ability to function correctly and reach consensus despite nodes failing or propagating incorrect information to peers.

Comparing Proof of Authority Consensus Protocols

Pantheon implements the Clique and IBFT 2.0 Proof of Authority consensus protocols. Proof of Authority consensus protocols are used when participants are known to each other and there is a level of trust between them. For example, in a permissioned consortium network.

Proof of Authority consensus protocols allow faster block times and have a much greater throughput of transactions than the Ethash Proof of Work consensus protocol used on the Ethereum MainNet.

In Clique and IBFT 2.0, a group of nodes in the network act as signers (Clique) or validators (IBFT 2.0). These nodes propose, validate, and add blocks to the blockchain. Nodes are added to or removed from the signer/validator pool by the existing group of nodes voting.

!!! note For the rest of this page, the term validator is used to refer to signers and validators.

Properties

Properties to consider when comparing Clique and IBFT 2.0 are:

  • Immediate finality
  • Liveness
  • Speed
  • Minimum number of validators

Immediate Finality

IBFT 2.0 has immediate finality. When using IBFT 2.0 there are no forks and all valid blocks are included in the main chain.

Clique does not have immediate finality. Implementations using Clique must be aware of forks and chain reorganizations occurring.

Liveness

Clique is more fault tolerant than IBFT 2.0. Clique tolerates up to half to the validators failing. IBFT 2.0 networks tolerate up to (n-1)/3 faulty nodes. For example, in an IBFT 2.0 network of:

  • 3, no bad node are tolerated
  • 4-6, 1 bad node is tolerated
  • 7-9, 2 bad nodes are tolerated

Speed

Reaching consensus and adding blocks is faster in Clique networks. For Clique, the probability of a fork increases number as the of validators increases.

For IBFT 2.0, the time to add new blocks increases as the number of validators increases.

Minimum Number of Validators

IBFT 2.0 requires 4 nodes to be Byzantine fault tolerant.