0

based on this answer: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/79402/41513 :

PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) is a voting based consensus algorithm in which every node must send messages to every other node, such that for n nodes, n(n-1) messages must be exchanged. This makes PBFT not scalable to large networks.

Hyperledger is a blockchain platform uses PBFT for consensus process.

On the other hand,

"Proof-of-Authority is a consensus mechanism to be used with EVM based chains, which can be used for private chain setups. The chain has to be signed off by the majority of authorities, in which case it becomes a part of the permanent record. PoA networks are well-suited to regulated industries where entities responsible for maintaining the network (authorities) need to be known, rather than remain anonymous as in mining-based chains like Bitcoin and Ethereum."

(Reference: https://wiki.parity.io/Proof-of-Authority-Chains).

And based on this answer: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/77651/41513 :

"Proof of Authority is, by definition, centralised. If the authority nodes go rogue, or fail to reach consensus, the network is useless. You could use it in public networks (some of the ethereum testnets are PoA), but it would not be a decentralized network."

As a result, we may conclude that:

PBFT and PoA has the following common features:

They are both voting based using authorized, trusted and known validators and both are used in permissioned blockchains. Although, their voting algorithms are different.

Can we consider any significant advantage/disadvantage/difference for each of them comparing to the each other?

For example, which one is more centralized/decentralized ? which one is more scalable ? etc

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.