Consensus Approaches of High-Value Crypto Currencies and Application in SHA-3

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 43)


In view of the widespread use of information technologies, the security of data against third parties should be maintained. Blockchain technology is used for this data and especially for transactions in finance. However, although bitcoin is well known as the crypto currency, the use of the blockchain technology is gaining importance in different areas as well. Thus, consensus algorithms have been developed in order to increase the security and especially the integrity of the crypto currencies. These consensus algorithms indirectly influence the market value of crypto currencies. In this study, consensus algorithms of some crypto currencies have been investigated. In addition to the SHA256 algorithm, the advantages and disadvantages of using Shake and Keccak algorithms as a part of the consensus algorithms, have been analyzed. SHA256, Keccak and Shake algorithms are compared regarding to their performance. As a result, we recommend that the cryptographic hash function can be replaced with the Shake algorithm can be an extendable output function for new crypto currencies.


Security Blockchain Consensus Cryptocurrency High-value crypto Hash functions Shake Keccak 


  1. 1.
    Narayanan, A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E., Miller, A., Goldfeder, S.: Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Androulaki, E., Barger, A., Bortnikov, V., Cachin, C., Christidis, K., De Caro, A., Muralidharan, S.: Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference, p. 30. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li, Z., Ren, W., Liu, X., Xie, L.: Distributed consensus of linear multi-agent systems with adaptive dynamic protocols. Automatica 49(7), 1986–1995 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baliga, A.: Understanding blockchain consensus models. In: Persistent (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sankar, L.S., Sindhu, M., Sethumadhavan, M.: Survey of consensus protocols on blockchain applications. In: 2017 4th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bach, L.M., Mihaljevic, B., Zagar, M.: Comparative analysis of blockchain consensus algorithms. In: 2018 41st International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), pp. 1545–1550. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., Wang, H.: An overview of blockchain technology: architecture, consensus, and future trends. In: 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), pp. 557–564. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blockchains consensus protocols in the wild. arXiv pre-print arXiv:1707.01873 (2017)
  9. 9.
    What is Litecoin? A basic beginners guide. Accessed 21 Dec 2018
  10. 10.
    What is Litecoin? Here’s everything you need to know. Accessed 26 Dec 2018
  11. 11.
    Block Hashing Algorithm—Litecoin. Accessed 28 Jan 2019
  12. 12.
    What is Ethereum Casper Protocol? Crash Course. Accessed 22 Dec 2018
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    What to Know Before Trading Monero. Accessed 24 Dec 2018
  15. 15.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cryptocurrency Industry Spotlight: Who is NEO’s Da Hongfei? Accessed 25 Dec 2018
  17. 17.
    Vukolić, M.: The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: proof-of-work vs. BFT replication. In: International Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security, pp. 112–125. Springer, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Tennant, L.: Improving the Anonymity of the IOTA Cryptocurrency (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peeters, M., Van Assche, G.: Keccak sponge function family main document. Submission to NIST (Round 2), vol. 3, no. 30 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cryptographic sponges. Accessed 21 Dec 2018
  22. 22.
    Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peeters, M., Van Assche, G.: Keccak specifications, Submission to NIST (round 2), pp. 320–337 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Badev, A., Chen, M.: Bitcoin: technical background and data analysis (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coin Market Cap. Accessed 21 Dec 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dokuz Eylül UniversityİzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Ege UniversityİzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Ondokuz Mayıs UniversitySamsunTurkey

Personalised recommendations