Open Access

A Comparative Evaluation of Blockchain Consensus Algorithms in Terms of Energy Efficiency and Performance Metrics

Doğukan Çatal1, Mehtap Köse Ulukök2*
1Department of Computer Engineering, Cyprus Aydın University, Northern Cyprus, Mersin, Türkiye
2Department of Computer Engineering, Cyprus Aydın University, Northern Cyprus, Mersin, Türkiye
* Corresponding author: mehtapulukok@cau.edu.tr

Presented at the International Symposium on AI-Driven Engineering Systems (ISADES2025), Tokat, Turkiye, Jun 19, 2025

SETSCI Conference Proceedings, 2025, 22, Page (s): 132-135 , https://doi.org/10.36287/setsci.22.33.001

Published Date: 10 July 2025

This study presents a comparative evaluation of five widely adopted blockchain consensus algorithms—Proof of Work (PoW), Proof of Stake (PoS), Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS), Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT), and Proof of Authority (PoA)—based on energy efficiency and performance metrics. As blockchain systems scale into broader applications, key indicators such as transaction throughput (TPS), latency, security, centralization risk, and scalability become increasingly critical. Each algorithm is assessed through theoretical analysis, empirical data, and simulation-based studies found in the literature. The findings indicate that Proof of Work is the most secure, but it does not environmentally sustainable due to its energy needs. Proof of Stake and Delegated Proof of Stake are more energy-efficient and have a high throughput, but it can lead to centralization. A Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus algorithm is great in permissioned networks, but it doesn't scale well. Furthermore, those networks aren't really decentralized. Proof of Authority is the most environmentally sustainable option, but that energy efficiency comes at the cost of decentralization. This research highlights the lack of sustainable consensus mechanisms, that is, consensus protocols that are both secure and scalable and environmentally sustainable—as a gap that future research can address.

Keywords - Blockchain, Consensus Algorithms, PoW, PoS, DPoS, PBFT, PoA, Scalability, Sustainability

[1] S. Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system," 2008. [Online]. Available: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[2] M. S. Alnahari and S. T. Ariaratnam, "The application of blockchain technology to smart city infrastructure," Smart Cities, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 979–993, 2022.

[3] S. M. H. Bamakan, A. Motavali, and A. B. Bondarti, "A survey of blockchain consensus algorithms performance evaluation criteria," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 154, Sep. 2020.

[4] Z. Liu, S. Tang, S. S. M. Chow, Z. Liu, and Y. Long, "Fork-free hybrid consensus with flexible proof-of-activity," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 96, pp. 515–524, 2019.

[5] J. Yun, Y. Goh, and J.-M. Chung, "Analysis of mining performance based on mathematical approach of PoW," in Proc. Int. Conf. Electron., Inf., Commun. (ICEIC), 2019.

[6] L. Shi, T. Wang, J. Li, S. Zhang, and S. Guo, "Decentralize mining power of PoW blockchain using age-of-work," IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 2756–2769, 2023.

[7] S. Leonardos, D. Reijsbergen, and G. Piliouras, "Weighted voting on the blockchain: Improving consensus in proof of stake protocols," Int. J. Netw. Manage., vol. 30, no. 5, 2020.

[8] D. Das, P. Chatterjee, S. Banerjee, U. Ghosh, and M. S. Al-Numay, "Blockchain-enabled federated learning for security and privacy in consumer electronics devices," IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron., early access, Jan. 2025.

[9] Ethereum Foundation, "Ethereum Energy Consumption After The Merge," 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ethereum.org/en/energy-consumption/

[10] A. Rejeb, J. G. Keogh, and H. Treiblmaier, "Leveraging the Internet of Things and blockchain technology in supply chain management," Future Internet, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 161, 2019.

[11] Solana Foundation, "Solana Throughput Performance," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://solana.com/performance

[12] M. Castro and B. Liskov, "Practical Byzantine fault tolerance," in Proc. 3rd Symp. Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 1999.

[13] D. Huang, X. Ma, and S. Zhang, "Performance analysis of the Raft consensus algorithm for private blockchains," IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Syst., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 172–181, Jan. 2020.

[14] K. Christidis and M. Devetsikiotis, "Blockchains and smart contracts for the Internet of Things," IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 2292–2303, 2016.

[15] L. Al Hwaitat et al., "A blockchain-based security framework for IoT networks," Sensors, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 45, 2023.

[16] D. Tan, J. Hu, and J. Wang, "VBBFT-Raft: An understandable blockchain consensus protocol with high performance," in Proc. IEEE 7th Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Netw. Technol. (ICCSNT), 2019.

[16] W. Gorenflo, S. Lee, L. Golab, and S. Keshav, "Energy-Efficient Blockchain Systems: A Survey," IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2096–2130, 2020.

[17] M. K. Ulukök, I. Sarıyıldız, and V. Evrim, "Hybrid Raft-PoW Blockchain Consensus Algorithm," IEEE Access, vol. 13, 2025.

[18] R. Zhou and W. Ying, "VG-Raft: Byzantine fault tolerance consensus protocol with verifiable gossip mechanism," IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 125161–125171, 2021.

1
Citations (Crossref)
8.1K
Total Views
484
Total Downloads

Licence Creative Commons This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
SETSCI 2025
info@set-science.com
Copyright © 2025 SETECH
Tokat Technology Development Zone Gaziosmanpaşa University Taşlıçiftlik Campus, 60240 TOKAT-TÜRKİYE