Sunday, June 26, 2022

Inside the blockchain developer’s mind: Proof-of-burn blockchain consensus


Related articles

Cointelegraph is following the event of a wholly new blockchain from inception to mainnet and past by its collection, Contained in the Blockchain Developer’s Thoughts. In earlier components, Andrew Levine of Koinos Group mentioned some of the challenges the staff has confronted since figuring out the important thing points they intend to unravel, and outlined three of the “crises” which might be holding again blockchain adoption: upgradeability, scalability and governance. This collection is targeted on the consensus algorithm: Part one is about proof-of-work, part two is about proof-of-stake and half three is about proof-of-burn. 

Within the first article within the collection, I explored proof-of-work (PoW) — the OG consensus algorithm — and defined the way it works to bootstrap decentralization but additionally why it’s inefficient. Within the second article, I explored proof-of-stake (PoS) and the way it’s good for decreasing the working prices of a decentralized community relative to proof-of-work, but additionally why it additional entrenches miners, requires complicated and ethically questionable slashing situations and fails to stop “alternate assaults.”

On this article, I’ll clarify the third consensus algorithm that was proposed a couple of yr after proof-of-stake however, for causes that ought to turn out to be clear, has by no means really been carried out as a consensus algorithm on a common goal blockchain. No less than, not till now.


As I defined within the first article, from a game-theoretical perspective blockchains are a recreation during which gamers compete to validate transactions by grouping them into blocks that match the blocks of transactions being created by different gamers. Bitcoin (BTC) works by assigning extra weight to blocks produced by individuals who have in all probability sacrificed extra capital which they “show” by “work.”

Since these folks have already spent their cash to accumulate {hardware} and run it to supply blocks, their punishment is straightforward as a result of they’ve already been punished. Proof-of-stake, nevertheless, operates in a essentially totally different means that has necessary game-theoretical penalties.


As an alternative of forcing block producers to sacrifice capital to accumulate and run {hardware} with the intention to achieve the power to earn block rewards, in proof-of-stake, the token holders want solely sacrifice the liquidity of their capital with the intention to earn block rewards. The issue is it decreases community safety as a result of the attacker want solely purchase 51% of the bottom forex of the platform and stake it to take management of the community.

To thwart this assault, PoS techniques that should implement sophisticated techniques designed to “slash” block rewards from consumer accounts, which provides to the computational overhead of the community, raises respectable moral considerations and solely work if the attacker fails to accumulate 51% of the token provide. Implementing these slashing situations is certainly not trivial, which is why so many proof-of-stake initiatives like Solana have, by their very own admission, launched with centralized options in place, and why so many different initiatives like Ethereum 2.0 (Eth2) are taking so lengthy to implement PoS. The everyday answer is to offer a basis a big sufficient stake in order that it alone has the facility to find out who’s a malicious actor and slash their rewards.

That is particularly problematic in a world with centralized exchanges that characteristic custodial staking which suggests it could actually discover itself in charge of over 51% of a given token provide with out having incurred any danger, making the price of an assault deminimus. The truth is, this has already occurred in current historical past on one of the crucial used blockchains on the earth, at one time valued at practically $2 billion: Steem.

Associated: Proof-of-stake vs. proof-of-work: Differences explained

Holy Grail consensus

As I mentioned on the finish of my final article, what we will probably be discussing on this article is the hypothetical query of whether or not there’s a “best-of-both-worlds” answer that delivers the decentralization and safety of proof-of-work with the effectivity of proof-of-stake. Right now, we’re excited to announce the discharge of our white paper on proof-of-burn. In that white paper, we argue that proof-of-burn is strictly that better of each worlds answer.

Iain Stewart proposed proof-of-burn in 2012 — a yr after proof-of-stake — as a thought experiment designed to distinction the variations between proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. We imagine that he unwittingly found the “holy grail” of consensus algorithms that received misplaced within the sands of time due largely to historic accidents. As Iain Stewart noted:

“I believed it will be attention-grabbing to invent a activity that’s completely, nakedly, unambiguously an instance of the distinction between the 2 viewpoints. And sure, there may be one: burning the forex!”

The alternate assault

As the previous core growth staff behind the Steem blockchain, we’ve got intimate expertise with alternate assaults. This is the reason mitigating this assault vector was of the utmost significance and impressed blockchain architect Steve Gerbino to discover various consensus algorithms seeking an answer that will nonetheless give us the efficiency and effectivity obligatory for a excessive efficiency world pc, all whereas mitigating this necessary assault vector.

Proof-of-burn as a consensus algorithm is remarkably easy and its distinctive worth is straightforward to grasp. Like proof-of-work, it requires that the price of attacking the community be paid “upfront.” Like proof-of-stake, no precise {hardware} must be bought and run apart from the {hardware} required to supply blocks. Like proof-of-work, the alternate assault is thwarted as a result of the block producer has already misplaced their cash, as they’re merely making an attempt to get it again by sustaining an accurate ledger.

With a purpose to mount a 51% assault, the malicious actor doesn’t simply want to accumulate 51% of the token provide, they should provably eliminate it by buying digital mining {hardware}. The one option to recoup that loss is by producing blocks on the chain that in the end wins. It’s a remarkably easy and stylish answer to the issue. There isn’t a want for slashing situations as a result of the block producer successfully slashed their very own stake on the very starting.


Iain Stewart proposed proof-of-burn for Bitcoin a yr earlier than a common goal blockchain was even conceived of by Vitalik Buterin. Maybe that’s the reason it has taken this lengthy for folks to understand that these two issues work collectively extremely properly. Basic goal blockchains place a excessive premium on effectivity whereas permitting for token financial designs with out max provide caps, a requirement for proof-of-burn implementations. A part of the issue may additionally have been that a number of modern ideas like nonfungible tokens (NFTs) and market makers, and options similar to upgradeable good contracts are extraordinarily useful to the implementation and solely emerged after the proposal.

NFT miners

Maintaining observe of which accounts have burned what quantities and after they had been burned generally is a computationally demanding activity and this elevated load on the community could possibly be one of many the reason why folks have prevented this implementation.

Thankfully, nonfungible tokens present us with a robust primitive which the system can use to effectively maintain observe of all of this info for the aim of distributing block rewards to legitimate block producers. The top result’s an NFT that successfully capabilities as a digital miner, but additionally one that’s infinitely and exactly customizable.

Blockchain builders can exactly regulate the accessibility of their platforms primarily based on how they worth their miner NFTs. Pricing the miners excessive can be like requiring the buying of ASICs (miner machines) with the intention to take part in block manufacturing. Pricing the miners low can be like permitting anybody to mine on commodity {hardware}. However, the perfect half is that no precise {hardware} is required both means.

Since Koinos is all about accessibility, miner NFTs will seemingly have a low worth, which is successfully like having the final word GPU and ASIC resistant algorithm attainable. However, this begs the query: “What should you choose the mistaken quantity?” This highlights the significance of modular upgradeability. On Koinos, all enterprise logic is carried out as good contract modules that are individually upgradeable with out a onerous fork. Because of this if, for instance, the worth of KOIN had been to blow up to the diploma that the fastened value of miners was now not sufficiently accessible, governance may merely vote to decrease that value and the quantity can be up to date the second there was a consensus.

Centralization resistance

Fixing the price of miner NFTs is like constructing probably the most GPU- and ASIC-resistant algorithm attainable as a result of nobody can achieve a bonus by buying specialised {hardware}. Higher but, it makes the miner NFTs extra uniform and due to this fact simpler to promote (extra fungible) on a decentralized alternate, which means that block producers are taking up much less danger as a result of they will at all times liquidate their miners.

The ability of proof-of-burn in the end stems from the truth that we’re internalizing the mining {hardware} to the system. It’s digital {hardware}, which implies that it’s infinitely customizable by the system designers to maximise the efficiency of the community. One consequence of that is that the system will be designed to make sure that the miner will earn again their burn plus some extra tokens — a assure that can not be made by proof-of-work techniques.

This customizability additionally permits us to mitigate 51% assaults by designing the system in order that because the demand for miners will increase, the payback interval will get prolonged.

Now, think about that somebody (like an alternate) desires to take over block manufacturing. First, they would wish to burn extra tokens than everybody else mixed. Even then, they’ll have gotten nothing for it. They might want to start producing blocks on the profitable chain to start to earn again their rewards. Throughout that point, different community contributors would be capable of see what is occurring and reply accordingly. In the event that they really feel that the actor is making an attempt to take management of governance, they will merely buy extra miners, pushing again the payback window for the malicious actor till they “get in line.”

Token economics

Proof-of-burn additionally has attention-grabbing financial properties that separate it from each PoW and PoS. For instance, should you had been to repair the speed of latest token creation (aka “inflation”), then, at a sure level, if too many individuals had been to take part in block manufacturing, then the token economic system would flip deflationary as a result of rewards can be getting pushed again sooner than new tokens had been being created. This might present efficiency advantages to the community, if obligatory.

Many individuals producing blocks can negatively impression latency. This deflationary part would serve to dynamically disincentivize extreme block manufacturing, whereas additionally offering the ecosystem with an necessary financial lever, or deflation.

It was my aim with this collection to offer the reader an insanely deep understanding of the subject of consensus algorithms in a means that was nonetheless accessible and, hopefully, attention-grabbing. We’ve lined the historic arc of the key consensus algorithms and what I feel is the following evolution: proof-of-burn. I hope that you’re now geared up to judge totally different consensus implementations for your self and are available to your individual conclusions about what’s innovating and what’s not.

The views, ideas and opinions expressed listed here are the writer’s alone and don’t essentially replicate or characterize the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Andrew Levine is the CEO of Koinos Group, a staff of trade veterans accelerating decentralization by accessible blockchain know-how. Their foundational product is Koinos, a fee-less and infinitely upgradeable blockchain with common language assist.