Table 1 Comparative analysis of PoW vs PoS consensus mechanisms for microgrid applications.
Metric | Proof-of-work (PoW) | Proof-of-stake (PoS) |
|---|---|---|
Energy consumption | Very high (\(\sim\)3,980 kWh/1000tx) | Low (\(\sim\)58 kWh/1000tx) |
Throughput (TPS) | 5–7 | 85–120 |
Latency | High | Moderate |
Consensus time | Very high (\(\sim\)15 s) | Moderate (\(\sim\)2.3 s) |
Scalability | Poor (unaffected by node count) | Moderate (degrades with nodes) |
Finality type | Probabilistic (\(\ge\)6 confirmations) | Deterministic (\(\sim\)2 epochs) |
Security model | Work-based (hash power) | Stake-based (economic incentives) |
Attack vector | 51% hash rate control | 51% stake control + slashing |
Environmental impact | Very high (contradicts green goals) | Low (supports sustainability) |
Validator selection | Competitive mining race | Pseudo-random stake-weighted |
Block creation | Mining difficulty puzzles | Committee attestation voting |
Fault tolerance | Limited (51% attack vulnerability) | Limited (stake concentration risk) |
Microgrid suitability | Poor (except audit-critical scenarios) | Good (balanced performance) |
