Nazfast: An Exceedingly Scalable, Secure, and Decentralized Consensus for Blockchain Network Powered by S&SEM and Sea Shield
Source abstract
Abstract
Blockchain technology uses a consensus mechanism to create and finalize blocks. The consensus mechanism affects the total performance parameters of the blockchain network, such as throughput. In this paper, we present “Nazfast”, a simplified proof of stake—Byzantine fault tolerance based consensus mechanism to create and finalize blocks. The presented consensus is completed in multiple folds. For block producer and validation committee selection, we used a secure and speeded-up election mechanism, S&Sem, in Nazfast. The consensus is designed for fast block finalization in a malicious environment. The simulation result shows that we approximately achieved three block finalizations in 1 s with almost similar latency. We reduced and fixed the number of validators in the consensus to improve the throughput. We achieved a higher throughput among other consensus of the same family. Because we reduced the number of validators, the safety parameters of the consensus are at risk, so we used Sea Shield to improve the overall consensus safety. This is another blockchain to save nodes’ details when they join/unjoin the network as validators. By using all three parts together, our system is protected from 28-plus different attacks, and we maintain a high decentralization by using S&Sem. Finally, we also enhance the incentive mechanism of consensus to improve the liveness of the network.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Blockchain Technology Applications and Security · IoT and Edge/Fog Computing · Caching and Content Delivery
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Hanyang University ERICA, Ansan 15588, Republic of Korea
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, Quill Publishing.
2. Ahamad, S., Nair, M., and Varghese, B. (2013, January 13–14). A survey on crypto currencies. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advances in Computer Science, AETACS, Citeseer, Delhi, India.
3. (2025, March 04). Litecoin into the Future—Litecoin Cryptocurrency. Available online: http://litecointrader.com/Litecoin-Future.html.
4. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger
5. Allombert, V., Bourgoin, M., and Tesson, J. (2019, January 15–19). Introduction to the tezos blockchain. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (HPCS), Dublin, Ireland.10.1109/HPCS48598.2019.9188227 ↗
6. EOS: An architectural, performance, and economic analysis
7. Gündüz, F., Birogul, S., and Kose, U. (2023). Proof of optimum (PoO): Consensus model based on fairness and efficiency in blockchain. Appl. Sci., 13.10.2139/ssrn.4498595 ↗
8. Burdges, J., Cevallos, A., Czaban, P., Habermeier, R., Hosseini, S., Lama, F., and Wood, G. (2020). Overview of polkadot and its design considerations. arXiv.
9. Tanana, D. (2019, January 3–6). Avalanche blockchain protocol for distributed computing security. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Black Sea Conference on Communications and Networking (BlackSeaCom), Sochi, Russia.10.1109/BlackSeaCom.2019.8812863 ↗
10. Naz, S., and Lee, S.-J. (2020, January 2–5). Why the new consensus mechanism is needed in blockchain technology?. Proceedings of the 2020 Second International Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA), Antalya, Turkey.10.1109/BCCA50787.2020.9274461 ↗
11. Naz, S., and Lee, S.-J. (2024). Sea Shield: A Blockchain Technology Consensus to Improve Proof-of-Stake-Based Consensus Blockchain Safety. Mathematics, 12.10.3390/math12060833 ↗
12. Naz, S., Siddiqui, M.J., and Lee, S.U. (2024). S&SEM: A Secure and Speed-Up Election Mechanism for PoS-Based Blockchain Network. Mathematics, 12.10.2139/ssrn.4757201 ↗
13. Tendermint: Consensus without mining
14. Blockchain: A comparative analysis of hybrid consensus algorithm and performance evaluation10.1016/j.compeleceng.2023.108934 ↗
15. Tsai, D.-Y., Harding, S.A., Sie, M.-F., and Liao, S. (2021, January 3–6). Testbed design and performance analysis for multilayer blockchains. Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Sydney, Australia.10.1109/ICBC51069.2021.9461103 ↗
16. Baliga, A., Subhod, I., Kamat, P., and Chatterjee, S. (2018). Performance evaluation of the quorum blockchain platform. arXiv.
17. The stellar consensus protocol: A federated model for internet-level consensus
18. Buchman, E. (2016). Tendermint: Byzantine Fault Tolerance in the Age of Blockchains. [Master′s Thesis, The University of Guelph].
19. Shapiro, G., Natoli, C., and Gramoli, V. (2020, January 24–27). The performance of Byzantine fault tolerant blockchains. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 19th international symposium on network computing and applications (NCA), Cambridge, MA, USA.10.1109/NCA51143.2020.9306742 ↗
20. (2025, March 03). Hyperledger burrow. Available online: https://github.com/hyperledger-archives/burrow.
21. Crain, T., Natoli, C., and Gramoli, V. (2018). Evaluating the red belly blockchain. arXiv.
22. Crain, T., Gramoli, V., Larrea, M., and Raynal, M. (2018, January 1–3). Dbft: Efficient leaderless byzantine consensus and its application to blockchains. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA), Cambridge, MA, USA.10.1109/NCA.2018.8548057 ↗
23. (2024, May 01). Visa Net: VisaNet | Electronic Payments Network | Visa. Available online: https://corporate.visa.com/en/about-visa/visanet.html.
24. Xian, X., Zhou, Y., Guo, Y., Yang, Z., and Liu, W. (2019, January 6–9). Improved Consensus Mechanisms Against Censorship Attacks. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Cyber Physical Systems (ICPS), Taipei, Taiwan.10.1109/ICPHYS.2019.8780370 ↗
25. Beltrando, L., Potop-Butucaru, M., and Alfaro, J. (2023, January 4–7). Tendertee: Increasing the resilience of tendermint by using trusted environments. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, Kharagpur, India.10.1145/3571306.3571394 ↗
26. Karamachoski, J., and Gavrilovska, L. (2022, January 4). BloHeS Consensus Mechanism–Introduction and Performance Evaluation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Future Access Enablers of Ubiquitous and Intelligent Infrastructures, Virtual.10.1007/978-3-031-15101-9_6 ↗
27. Bonniot, L., Neumann, C., and Taïani, F. (2020, January 21–24). PnyxDB: A lightweight leaderless democratic Byzantine fault tolerant replicated datastore. Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), Shanghai, China.10.1109/SRDS51746.2020.00023 ↗
28. Kim, S., Lee, S., Jeong, C., and Cho, S. (2020, January 19–22). Byzantine fault tolerance based multi-block consensus algorithm for throughput scalability. Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication (ICEIC), Barcelona, Spain.10.1109/ICEIC49074.2020.9051279 ↗
29. TontineCoin: Survivor-based Proof-of-Stake10.1007/s12083-021-01227-x ↗
30. Feng, J., Zhao, X., Lu, G., and Zhao, F. (2019, January 15). PoTN: A novel blockchain consensus protocol with proof-of-trust negotiation in distributed IoT networks. Proceedings of the 2nd International ACM Workshop on Security and Privacy for the Internet-of-Things, London, UK.10.1145/3338507.3358613 ↗
31. T-PBFT: An EigenTrust-based practical Byzantine fault tolerance consensus algorithm10.23919/JCC.2019.12.008 ↗
32. Lei, L., Lan, C., and Lin, L. (2020, January 12–14). Chained Tendermint: A Parallel BFT Consensus Mechanism. Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Hot Information-Centric Networking (HotICN), Hefei, China.10.1109/HotICN50779.2020.9350801 ↗
33. Aştefanoaei, L., Chambart, P., Del Pozzo, A., Rieutord, T., Tucci, S., and Zălinescu, E. (2020). Tenderbake—A Solution to Dynamic Repeated Consensus for Blockchains. arXiv.
34. Bui, N.P., Hoang, M.-T., Nguyen, T., Dinh, H.-H.-Q., and Nguyen, B.M. (2023, January 7–8). An Enhanced Tendermint Consensus Protocol Powered by Elliptic Curve VRF for Beacon Chain Model. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Information and Communication Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.10.1145/3628797.3628861 ↗
35. Amoussou-Guenou, Y., Del Pozzo, A., Potop-Butucaru, M., and Tucci-Piergiovanni, S. (2018). Correctness and fairness of tendermint-core blockchains. arXiv.
36. Assiri, B., and Khan, W.Z. (2019, January 9–11). Enhanced and lock-free tendermint blockchain protocol. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT), Tianjin, China.10.1109/SmartIoT.2019.00041 ↗
37. A survey on zero-knowledge proof in blockchain10.1109/MNET.011.2000473 ↗
38. (2025, January 15). Open Jackson Network. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_network.
39. (2024, July 10). Merkle Tree—Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree.
40. Yiu, N.C. (2021). An overview of forks and coordination in blockchain development. arXiv.
41. (2025, January 14). Heterogeneous Blockchain Networks. Available online: https://medium.com/@arikan/a-comparison-of-heterogeneous-blockchain-networks-4bf7ff2fe279.
42. Digital signature
43. (2025, January 13). Exponential Distribution. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution.
44. Analyzing the prospects of blockchain in healthcare industry10.1155/2022/3727389 ↗
45. Kadir, K.A., Wahab, N.H.A., Hartomom, K.D., and Harun, S.Z. (2024, January 1–2). Unleashing the potential of blockchain and internet of things (IoT) convergence: A comprehensive study. Proceedings of the 2024 20th IEEE International Colloquium on Signal Processing & Its Applications (CSPA), Langkawi, MA, USA.10.1109/CSPA60979.2024.10525321 ↗
46. Hisseine, M.A., Chen, D., and Yang, X. (2022). The application of blockchain in social media: A systematic literature review. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12136567 ↗
47. Blockchain in government: Toward an evaluation framework
48. The osi model: Overview on the seven layers of computer networks
49. Blockchain technology and its applications: Case studies
50. Bonneau, J. (2016, January 22–26). Why buy when you can rent? Bribery attacks on bitcoin-style consensus. Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Christ Church, Barbados.10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_2 ↗
51. Equilibrium analysis of bitcoin block withholding attack: A generalized model10.1016/j.ress.2018.12.026 ↗
52. Singh, S.K., Salim, M.M., Cho, M., Cha, J., Pan, Y., and Park, J.H. (2019). Smart contract-based pool hopping attack prevention for blockchain networks. Symmetry, 11.10.3390/sym11070941 ↗
53. A survey of solutions to the Sybil attack
54. Kwon, Y., Kim, D., Son, Y., Vasserman, E., and Kim, Y. (November, January 30). Be selfish and avoid dilemmas: Fork after withholding (faw) attacks on bitcoin. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Dallas, TX, USA.10.1145/3133956.3134019 ↗
55. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable10.1145/3212998 ↗
56. Survey of consensus algorithms for proof of stake in blockchain10.1155/2022/2812526 ↗
57. Li, A., Wei, X., and He, Z. (2020). Robust proof of stake: A new consensus protocol for sustainable blockchain systems. Sustainability, 12.10.3390/su12072824 ↗
58. Priya, E.S., and Priya, R. (2023, January 11–12). Performance Comparison of On-Chain and Off-Chain Data Storage Model Using Blockchain Technology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers of Intelligent Computing: Theory and Applications, Cardiff, UK.10.1007/978-981-99-6702-5_41 ↗
59. Sattaiah, K., and Chinnaiah, K. (2024, January 1–3). Providing security in genesis and other blocks of blockchain technology using SHA256 algorithm. Proceedings of the 2024 3rd International Conference for Innovation in Technology (INOCON), Bangalore, India.10.1109/INOCON60754.2024.10511929 ↗
60. Chandra, S., Paira, S., Alam, S.S., and Sanyal, G. (2014, January 17–18). A comparative survey of symmetric and asymmetric key cryptography. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Electronics, Communication and Computational Engineering (ICECCE), Hosur, India.10.1109/ICECCE.2014.7086640 ↗
61. Zhou, X., and Tang, X. (2011, January 22–24). Research and implementation of RSA algorithm for encryption and decryption. Proceedings of the 2011 6th International Forum on Strategic Technology, Harbin, China.
62. An overview of public key cryptography10.1109/MCOM.2002.1006971 ↗
63. Aydar, M., Cetin, S.C., Ayvaz, S., and Aygun, B. (2019). Private key encryption and recovery in blockchain. arXiv.
64. (2025, January 11). Cryptographically Secure Pseudorandom Number Generator (CSPRNG). Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator.
65. (2024, December 08). What Are Crypto Attacks?—MiEthereum. Available online: https://miethereum.com/learn/crypto-attacks/.
66. Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., and Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11.10.1371/journal.pone.0163477 ↗
67. (2024, December 17). Time-Locked Transaction Attack. Available online: https://hacken.io/insights/blockchain-security-vulnerabilities/.
68. Survey of security supervision on blockchain from the perspective of technology
69. (2024, December 03). Rug Pull Attack: What It Is and How to Avoid Rug Pulls—Hacken. Available online: https://hacken.io/discover/rug-pull-explained/.
70. (2025, January 12). Peer-to-Peer Network. Available online: https://blog.cfte.education/what-is-p2p-network-blockchain/.
71. Attacks on blockchain10.1016/bs.adcom.2020.08.020 ↗
72. (2024, December 23). Alien Attack Vulnerability in Blockchain Network. Available online: https://slowmist.medium.com/alien-attack-vulnerability-from-p2p-protocol-4bcf9e5087e9.
73. Anita, N., and Vijayalakshmi, M. (2019, January 6–8). Blockchain security attack: A brief survey. Proceedings of the 2019 10th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Kanpur, India.10.1109/ICCCNT45670.2019.8944615 ↗
74. Analysis of spam transaction on the blockchain
75. CE-PBFT: A high availability consensus algorithm for large-scale consortium blockchain10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.101957 ↗
76. Barke, S., and Srivastava, G. (2024, January 6–9). ReVo: A Hybrid Consensus Protocol for Blockchain in the Internet of Things through Reputation and Voting Mechanisms. Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 21st Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA.10.1109/CCNC51664.2024.10454776 ↗
77. Alamer, A., and Assiri, B. (2024). Proof of fairness: Dynamic and secure consensus protocol for blockchain. Electronics, 13.10.3390/electronics13061056 ↗
78. Ramos-Cruz, B., Andreu-Pérez, J., Quesada, F.J., and Martínez, L. (2024). Fuzzychain: An Equitable Consensus Mechanism for Blockchain Networks. arXiv.
79. A survey on long-range attacks for proof of stake protocols10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2901858 ↗
80. Kaur, G., Lashkari, A.H., Sharafaldin, I., and Lashkari, Z.H. (2023). Understanding Cybersecurity Management in Decentralized Finance: Challenges, Strategies, and Trends, Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-23340-1 ↗
81. (2024, December 03). Dockeyhunt Liveness Denial Attack—DOCKEYHUNT. Available online: https://dockeyhunt.com/dockeyhunt-liveness-denial-attack/.
82. Joshi, J., and Mathew, R. (2020, January 19–20). A survey on attacks of bitcoin. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Networks, Big Data and IoT (ICCBI-2018), Madurai, India.
83. Bano, S., Sonnino, A., Al-Bassam, M., Azouvi, S., McCorry, P., Meiklejohn, S., and Danezis, G. (2019, January 21–23). SoK: Consensus in the age of blockchains. Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, Zurich, Switzerland.
84. Blockchain attacks analysis and a model to solve double spending attack
85. Security threats on blockchain and its countermeasures
86. (2024, February 08). 51% Attack: The Concept, Risks & Prevention—Hacken. Available online: https://hacken.io/discover/51-percent-attack/.
87. (2024, December 03). Grinding Attack. Available online: https://github.com/slowmist/Cryptocurrency-Security-Audit-Guide/blob/main/Blockchain-Common-Vulnerability-List.md#grinding-attack.
88. Kiayias, A., Russell, A., David, B., and Oliynykov, R. (2017, January 20–24). Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. Proceedings of the Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.10.1007/978-3-319-63688-7_12 ↗
89. King, S., and Nadal, S. (2025, March 05). Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. Self-Publ. Pap. August 2012, 19., Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:42319203.
90. Santhosh, A., and Subramanian, N. (2024, January 29–30). Classify Attacks Based on Blockchain Components. Proceedings of the 2024 12th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), San Antonio, TX, USA.10.1109/ISDFS60797.2024.10527258 ↗
91. (2024, December 03). Coin Age Accumulation Attack. Available online: https://dockeyhunt.com/dockeyhunt-coin-age-accumulation-attack/.
92. (2024, December 21). Block Double Production Attack. Available online: https://dockeyhunt.com/dockeyhunt-block-double-production/.
93. A survey on blockchain technology and its security10.1016/j.bcra.2022.100067 ↗
94. Braithwaite, S., Buchman, E., Khoffi, I., Konnov, I., Milosevic, Z., Ruetschi, R., and Widder, J. (2020). A tendermint light client. arXiv.
95. (2025, February 22). Efficiency Measurement Technique. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation.
96. Chen, J., and Micali, S. (2016). Algorand. arXiv.
97. Fan, C., Lin, C., Khazaei, H., and Musilek, P. (2022, January 15–18). Performance analysis of hyperledger besu in private blockchain. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures (DAPPS), Newark, CA, USA.10.1109/DAPPS55202.2022.00016 ↗
98. IO.E (2018). Eos. io technical white paper v2. EOS Tech. Rep., 81, 85.
99. (2025, April 28). Delegated proof-of-Stake (DPOS). Available online: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/.
100. Sukhwani, H., Martínez, J.M., Chang, X., Trivedi, K.S., and Rindos, A. (2017, January 26–29). Performance modeling of PBFT consensus process for permissioned blockchain network (hyperledger fabric). Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 36th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), Hong Kong, China.10.1109/SRDS.2017.36 ↗