Table 3 Pros and cons for each PoX consensus algorithm

Proof of Work (PoW)

(Yang et al. 2019; Puthal and Mohanty 2018; Dey 2018)

Protect against DoS attacks and spam

Intensive usage of energy and resources required for the system

Secure the entire network

The risk of a 51% attack

Prevent double spending attacks in distributed systems

Proof of Stake (PoS)

(Vashchuck and Shuwar 2018; Nguyen et al. 2019; Yang et al.2019)

Less power consumption and less hardware usage compared to PoW

Coin hoarding

Monopolization

Double spending

Proof of Burn (PoB)

(Karntias et al. 2020; Menon et al. 2022)

Reduced reliance on computational resources

The destruction of coins leads to resource waste

User commitment over the long term

Hoarding of coins

Decentralized structure

Attempts to manipulate the system through control of a large number of coins

Lower energy consumption compared to proof-of-work systems

Proof of Activity (PoA)

(Salimitari et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2020)

This system is more secure against 51% attacks than PoS and PoW

Intensive use of resources is required to carry out certain actions

It is resistant to DoS attacks

The possibility of a monopoly forming increases if there is a high risk of penalty for attempting to double sign transactions

It promotes decentralization

There is a balance to be struck between the energy needed to perform certain actions and the potential for monopoly power

Proof of Space (PoS)

(Park et al. 2018; Benisi et al. 2020)

Energy efficiency due to the use of low-power hard drives instead of specialized hardware such as ASICs, CPUs, and GPUs

Verification efficiency and storage availability are challenging task

Greater potential for decentralization

The potential for a probabilistic monopoly with large amounts of space

Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS)

(Saad et al. 2020; Do et al. 2019)

Speed: DPoS can facilitate faster transaction processing and block production compared to other proof of stake algorithms

Potential for centralization: The use of delegates in DPoS can potentially lead to centralization if the same small group of delegates are consistently elected to represent the network

Energy efficiency: DPoS uses significantly less energy than proof of work algorithms, making it more environmentally friendly

Limited participation: Only those with a significant number of tokens can participate in the delegate selection process, which may exclude some members of the community

Decentralization: DPoS allows for a more decentralized network by allowing token holders to vote for “delegates” who will represent them in the decision-making process

Complexity: DPoS is a more complex system than traditional proof of stake algorithms, which may make it more difficult to understand and implement

Delayed Proof of Work (dPoW)

(Sayeed et al. 2019)

Increased security: DPoW uses a secondary blockchain to secure the main chain, providing an additional layer of protection against 51% attacks

Complexity: DPoW is a more complex system than traditional proof of work algorithms, which can make it more difficult to understand and implement

Decentralization: DPoW can help to decentralize the mining process by allowing a wider range of miners to participate in the network

Dependency on secondary chain: DPoW relies on a secondary chain to secure the main chain, which means that if the secondary chain becomes compromised, the main chain may also be at risk

Energy efficiency: DPoW uses less energy than traditional proof of work algorithms, making it more environmentally friendly

Compatibility issues: DPoW may not be compatible with certain types of software or hardware, which could limit its use in certain situations