⁉️Why ICB Network ?
Comparison chart between ICB NETWORK PoS-based blockchains and other blockchains using different consensus mechanisms
| Feature | ICB PoS | Proof of Work (PoW) | Proof of Stake (PoS) | Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Transaction Speed | High (Fast block times) | Low (Slow block times) | Moderate (Variable block times) | High (Fast block times) |
Energy Efficiency | High (Very low energy consumption) | Low (High energy consumption) | Moderate (Variable energy consumption) | Moderate (Variable energy consumption) |
Decentralization | High (Delegation upon KYC for projects and investors) | High (Distributed mining power) | Moderate (Variable depending on token distribution) | Low (Centralized validator set) |
Security | High (KYC Delegators participation) | High (Proven security track record) | Moderate (Variable depending on staking mechanism) | High (Byzantine fault tolerance) |
Governance | Direct democracy (Token holders vote for delegates) | Indirect democracy (Miners influence network through hash power) | Variable (Depends on specific PoS implementation) | Limited (Pre-defined validator set) |
Cost of Entry | Low (No mining hardware required) | High (Mining hardware and electricity costs) | Moderate (Staking tokens required) | Moderate (Staking tokens or reputation required) |
Scalability | High (Handles large transaction volumes) | Moderate (Limited scalability) | Variable (Depends on specific PoS implementation) | High (Handles large transaction volumes) |
Distribution of Rewards | High (KYC Projects/ Stakers take part of gas fee) | Proportional to mining power | Proportional to staked tokens | Fixed or proportional to delegated stake |
Vulnerability to Attacks | Not Possible as KYC members Delegates | 51% attack on mining power | Double-spend attacks, slashing | Forking, censorship |
Last updated