Proof of Bid as Alternative to Proof of Work

  • Wai Kok ChanEmail author
  • Ji-Jian Chin
  • Vik Tor Goh
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1132)


Proof of Work (PoW) protocol for cryptocurrency uses an excessive amount of electricity to secure the network. Many PoW coins do not have sufficient hashing power to secure itself. There are many alternatives to PoW, such as Proof of Stake (PoS), merge-mining etcetera, which uses much less electricity. However, these alternatives have some drawbacks either in terms of security, complexity, and scalability. In this paper, an alternative to Proof of Work (PoW) called “Proof of BID” (PoB) protocol introduced. PoB makes use of existing bitcoin PoW to secure all transactions, thus consuming virtually no electricity. PoB also addresses most of the drawbacks faced by PoW alternatives. We have disclosed a systematic method on how to effectively re-used bitcoin PoW to secure a blockchain with the same level of bitcoin security. A few designs issue to improve the blockchain scalability is given. We have explored various attack scenarios and suggested some remedies.


Blockchain Proof of Work Proof of Bid Consensus 


  1. 1.
    de Vries, A.: Bitcoin’s growing energy problem. Joule 2(5), 801–805 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poelstra, A.: On Stake and Consensus (2016).
  3. 3.
    Bentov, I., Gabizon, A., Mizrahi, A.: Cryptocurrencies without proof of work. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 142–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Snider, M., Samani, K., Jain, T.: Delegated proof of stake: features & tradeoff. Multicoin Capital (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bentov, I., Lee, C., Mizrahi, A., Rosenfeld, M.: Proof of activity: extending Bitcoin’s proof of work via proof of stake. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2014, p. 452 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milutinovic, M., He, W., Wu, H., Kanwal, M.: Proof of luck: an efficient blockchain consensus protocol. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop System Software Trusted Execution (SysTEX), pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colin, L.M.: Nano: a feeless distributed cryptocurrency. Network.
  8. 8.
    Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: PHANTOM: a scalable BlockDAG protocol. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2018, p. 104 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sompolinsky, Y., Lewenberg, Y., Zohar, A.: Spectre: a fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016, p. 1159 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A.: Secure high-rate transaction processing in Bitcoin. In: Böhme, R., Okamoto, T. (eds.) FC 2015. LNCS, vol. 8975, pp. 507–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Sidechains, Drivechains, and RSK 2-Way peg Design. Accessed 11 May 2019
  13. 13.
    P4Titan. SlimCoin.: A Peer-to-peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Burn. Mining without powerful hardware, 17 May (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Judmayer, A., Zamyatin, A., Stifter, N., Voyiatzis, A.G., Weippl, E.: Merged mining: curse or cure? In: Garcia-Alfaro, J., Navarro-Arribas, G., Hartenstein, H., Herrera-Joancomartí, J. (eds.) ESORICS/DPM/CBT -2017. LNCS, vol. 10436, pp. 316–333. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Adams, C., Cain, P., Pinkas, D., Zuccherato, R.: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP). RFC 3161, August 2001Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinkas, D., Pope, N., Ross, J.: Policy Requirements for Time-Stamping Authorities (TSAs), RFC 3628, November 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Informatics and ComputingMultimedia UniversityCyberjayaMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringMultimedia UniversityCyberjayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations