Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Q-PnV: A Quantum Consensus Mechanism for Security Consortium Blockchains

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Q-PnV makes consortium-blockchain consensus quantum-safe by putting votes in entangled states and leader choice in QRNGs.

desk verdict A concrete quantum-consensus composition for consortium blockchains, but the security claims are asserted, not derived, and the honest limitation note doesn't fill the gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06325 v1 pith:6EOFYWO2 submitted 2024-12-09 cs.CR quant-ph

Jianming Lin , Hui Li , Hongjian Xing , Runhuai Huang , Weixiang Huang , Shaowen Deng , Yanping Zhang , Weimin Zeng
show 4 more authors
Ping Lu Xiyu Wang Tao Sun Xiongyan Tang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRquant-ph
keywords quantumblockchainconsortiumconsensusmechanismvotingproofofvoteQRNGweightedhypergraphstatesQKDidentityauthentication
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Q-PnV is an attempt to make consortium blockchains quantum-native: it takes the classical Proof-of-Vote consensus, which already has low latency and high throughput, and replaces the pieces a quantum computer would break. Votes become measurements on entangled states that self-tally in public, identity is authenticated with quantum-key-distribution-derived keys, and the rotating block producer is chosen by a quantum random number generator instead of by inverting a hash. Valid blocks are linked into a weighted-hypergraph quantum blockchain, where tampering with one block destroys the entanglement of the whole chain. The paper argues that this combination resists quantum attacks and improves fairness compared with classical PoV and PnV. The paper also states that the scheme cannot yet be implemented or simulated, so the payoff is conditional on future quantum-network hardware.

What carries the argument

The engine of Q-PnV is the self-tallying quantum anonymous voting protocol based on two multipartite entangled states: |Xn>, whose n computational-basis outcomes sum to 0 modulo m while its Fourier-basis outcomes are all identical, and |Sn>, whose outcomes form a random permutation of the set {0,...,n-1} in either basis. These states serve as the ballot matrix and the ballot index: the first makes tampering detectable through parity and equality checks, and the second lets each voter hide which row of their ballot they modify. Around this engine, the protocol uses QKD-derived keys for identity authentication, a consortium-maintained QRNG for rotating-bookkeeper selection, and weighted-hypergraph states, in which qubits are vertices and multi-qubit Controlled-Z gates are weighted hyperedges, to entangle successive block qubits; the optimized hypergraph circuit from the quantum-blockchain literature supplies the actual entanglement operation.

What would settle it

Run the paper's four-voter example on a real or simulated quantum device under honest conditions and check the two security tests: the parity and equality checks on |Xn> and the permutation check on |Sn>. If even a small amount of noise makes the tests fail too often for a vote to complete, or if a single dishonest bookkeeper can choose the prepared states so that voters' choices are recoverable from the public tally, the protocol's claimed security and fairness would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that consensus can be made quantum-safe by moving the security burden from number-theoretic cryptography to entanglement and measurement. In Q-PnV, a rotating bookkeeper prepares n-particle states |Xn> and |Sn> and distributes one particle to each voter; voters verify the states with parity and permutation tests, then cast an anonymous ballot by adding their choice modulo 2 to the row selected by a private |Sn> index. Because the tally is computed from the public matrix, the protocol is self-tallying and no voter's choice can be traced, while forged or altered states fail the security tests. The next bookkeeper is chosen by a consortium-supervised QRNG rather than by a hash of signatures and timestamps, and QKD-based identity authentication keeps impersonators out. Blocks whose qubits pass the voting threshold are entangled into the existing weighted-hypergraph chain, so the security argument rests on physical tamper-evidence rather than computational hardness.

Load-bearing premise

The whole protocol assumes a working quantum network already exists, one that can reliably create and send the interlinked quantum particles that votes and blocks are made of; without that, Q-PnV cannot be deployed at all.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A consortium blockchain running Q-PnV no longer needs classical digital signatures or hash-based randomness for its consensus path, removing the two attack surfaces that Shor's and Grover's algorithms target.
  • If the QRNG is trusted and consortium-supervised, no coalition of bookkeepers can predict or manipulate the rotation order, so block-production rights stay fair across tenure cycles.
  • Block tampering becomes physically evident: because blocks are entangled into a weighted-hypergraph state, altering one block's encoded phase disrupts the correlations of the whole chain.
  • Voters can independently recount votes from the public ballot matrix, so a dishonest bookkeeper cannot silently alter the outcome of block validation or bookkeeper election.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the same |Xn> and |Sn> ballot machinery could be applied to other permissioned voting tasks inside a consortium, such as parameter changes or membership votes, without changing the consensus core.
  • Editorial inference: the paper does not argue security against a dishonest state-preparing bookkeeper, so a practical deployment would need distributed preparation or verification that the bookkeeper cannot bias the |Xn> states before they are distributed.
  • Editorial inference: because consortium networks are small and their operators are well-resourced, Q-PnV-type designs may be the first quantum-blockchain family to meet the quantum Internet's early-stage constraints, which is exactly where the paper positions its contribution.
  • Editorial inference: a natural first test is a noisy few-qubit simulation of the paper's four-voter example, checking how often the parity and permutation tests pass; the paper's own conclusion acknowledges that no such experiment or simulation is yet available.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Q-PnV, a quantum consensus mechanism for consortium blockchains that combines quantum voting (based on Wang et al.'s |Xn> and |Sn> entangled states), QKD-based identity authentication, and QRNG-based rotating-bookkeeper selection, and integrates this with a weighted-hypergraph quantum blockchain. The authors claim that, compared to classical PoV/PnV, the resulting scheme resists quantum attacks and significantly improves security and fairness. The protocol is described step-by-step and illustrated with a four-voter toy example, but the analysis section (Section V) is only two short qualitative paragraphs with no adversary model, no security proof, and no simulation.

Significance. If the security and fairness claims were rigorously established, Q-PnV would be a useful design blueprint for quantum-native consortium blockchains, filling a gap in the literature. The paper's concrete protocol description and worked example are valuable as a starting point. However, the central claims are asserted rather than demonstrated: there is no formal threat model, no analysis of the security tests, and no quantitative comparison with the classical baselines. The paper also explicitly assumes a practical distributed quantum network and trusted QRNGs, which limits its immediate applicability. As it stands, the contribution is a protocol sketch with unverified security properties, so the significance is moderate at best until the analysis is supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.A] The security analysis is not a derivation but a qualitative summary. It asserts that attackers 'cannot tamper with the blocks or attack the consensus process' and that quantum voting prevents interference, but it provides no adversary model (e.g., which nodes may be malicious, what computational or quantum capabilities are assumed, whether the adversary can corrupt the rotating bookkeeper or voters), no concrete security bound, and no simulation or experimental validation. Since the paper's own conclusion states that 'the proposed scheme cannot yet be experimented with or simulated,' the central security claim is entirely unsupported and must be considered an open question.
  2. [Section III.C (S1-S2)] The rotating bookkeeper is the sole preparer and distributor of the ballot states |Xn> and |Sn>, and the protocol implicitly trusts that this node is honest in its preparation. However, the PoV model described in Section II.A.2 only requires at least one honest bookkeeper for liveness, not that the current rotating bookkeeper is trusted. A malicious rotating bookkeeper can prepare these states as purifications, keeping ancilla qubits that correlate with voters' subsequent measurement outcomes. The security tests in S1 and S2 use parameters δ0 and δ1, but the paper provides no bound on the adversary's cheating advantage as a function of δ0, δ1 and n, and no composable security proof. Without such a bound, the fairness and anonymity claims in Section V.B are not established: a dishonest bookkeeper could use the ancillas to recover each voter's ballot matrix after the voters publish their modified columns, thereby determining individual votes.
  3. [Section IV.A S2 and IV.B] The voting verification step only checks that a block's phase satisfies θp ∈ (0, π/2) and that the sum of phases is less than π/2, but it does not verify the equiproportionality condition of Eq. (6), θpi = 2^{-(i-1)} θp1. The numerical example in Section IV.B does follow Eq. (6), yet the general protocol does not enforce or verify this condition. Without this constraint, even if the sum condition holds, the phase angles may not correspond to a valid weighted-hypergraph state, and the claimed entanglement-based tamper detection may fail. The protocol should either require and verify Eq. (6) or prove that the weaker conditions are sufficient for the hypergraph-state construction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'better suit-ed' should be 'better suited'.
  2. [Section III.A] The subsection numbering is inconsistent: 'Quantum Internet' has no number, while the following subsection is labeled '2) Two Types of Quantum Multiparticle Entangled States in Voting Process', skipping '1)'.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The summation condition 'Pn−1 i=0 ji mod m=0' is ambiguous; it should be written as \(\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} j_i \equiv 0 \pmod{m}\) to be clear.
  4. [Section IV.A] The subsection title 'Determining the Rotating Bookkeeper' duplicates the title of Section III.D; the Section IV.A title should instead describe the construction of quantum blocks.
  5. [Table I] The table headers are confusing: the last column 'R' is not defined in the caption, and the entries for r'_{0,k} etc. mix notation with inline mod-2 computations; a separate column showing the final row sums would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Q-PnV composes externally sourced quantum voting, QKD authentication, QRNG selection, and hypergraph-state blockchain primitives; no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction and no equation reduces to an input.

full rationale

The paper is a protocol construction rather than a fitted or derived prediction. The classical PoV/PnV framework is cited from the authors' earlier work ([14]-[17]), but it is used as an explicit starting point, not as evidence for the new quantum security claims. The quantum voting procedure is imported from Wang et al. [27]; QRNG technology from Mannalatha et al. [28]; the weighted-hypergraph quantum blockchain from Banerjee et al. [7], Li et al. [8], and Orts et al. [9]. None of these imported components is defined in terms of Q-PnV's own outputs, and no parameter is fitted to data and then called a prediction. The security and fairness statements in Section V are asserted rather than formally derived: the paper gives no adversarial model or cheating bound for the rotating bookkeeper who prepares and distributes the |Xn> and |Sn> states, and the conclusion explicitly says the scheme cannot yet be simulated. An unsupported assertion is a completeness or correctness risk, however, not a circular reduction. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces by definition or by self-citation, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design rests on four classes of assumptions: a practical quantum network, trusted QRNGs, correctness of the borrowed quantum voting and hypergraph-blockchain primitives, and the unproven claim that entanglement protects block integrity. The protocol has no fitted numerical parameters; only security-strength and block-phase choices are made by hand.

free parameters (3)
  • delta_0 (security strength for ballot boxes)
    Set by the consortium; controls the number of test particles in the |Xn> security test. No particular value is required for the protocol to work.
  • delta_1 (security strength for ballot indexes)
    Set by the consortium; controls the number of test particles in the |Sn> security test.
  • theta_p1 (first quantum block phase)
    Inherited from Banerjee et al.'s hypergraph blockchain; any value below pi/4 is allowed, and later phases are scaled down by powers of two. Not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A distributed quantum network capable of reliable qubit preparation, distribution, and measurement exists and operates at practical levels.
    Explicitly assumed in Section III.A: the paper states that a distributed interconnected quantum network has already been realized and that qubit preparation and distribution meet practical levels. All Q-PnV voting and entanglement steps depend on this.
  • domain assumption Consortium members jointly maintain QRNGs as trusted true quantum devices that do not behave dishonestly.
    Section III.D states that QRNGs are maintained and supervised jointly by the entire consortium, ensuring they are true quantum devices and do not behave dishonestly. The security of the rotating bookkeeper selection relies on this trust assumption.
  • standard math The properties of |Xn> and |Sn> entangled states, including the security tests, hold as described in Wang et al. [27].
    Q-PnV adopts the quantum voting protocol of Wang et al. wholesale; the correctness of the ballot matrix and ballot index procedures is assumed from that cited work.
  • domain assumption QKD-based identity authentication is unconditionally secure.
    Section III.B uses QKD-based identity authentication and calls it absolutely secure; no attack model or implementation details are given.
  • standard math Weighted-hypergraph quantum blockchain circuits from Banerjee et al. [7], Li et al. [8], and Orts et al. [9] entangle blocks correctly and preserve chain integrity.
    The integrated blockchain construction in Section IV relies on these external circuits and on the asserted but unproven claim that modifying a block disrupts the entire chain.
  • ad hoc to paper Modifying any block's encoded phase or data disrupts the entanglement chain in a detectable way, so attackers cannot tamper with blocks.
    Section V.A asserts this without formal proof; it is the basis for the security claim but is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Q-PnV: A Quantum Consensus Mechanism for Security Consortium Blockchains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EOFYWO2

@misc{pith2026241206325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Q-PnV: A Quantum Consensus Mechanism for Security Consortium Blockchains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EOFYWO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06325}
}
read the original abstract

Due to the rapid development of quantum computing, many classical blockchain technologies are now considered insecure. The emergence of quantum blockchain holds promise for addressing this issue. Various quantum consensus algorithms have been proposed so far, but there has not yet been a quantum consensus algorithm tailored specifically for consortium blockchain scenarios. In this paper, we propose a novel quantum consensus mechanism, named Q-PnV. This consensus mechanism is based on the classical Proof of Vote (PoV), integrating quantum voting, quantum digital signature and quantum random number generators (QRNGs). By combining Q-PnV with a quantum blockchain using weighted hypergraph states, we propose a comprehensive quantum blockchain solution for consortium blockchain scenarios. Compared to the classical method, the quantum blockchain based on Q-PnV can resist quantum attacks and shows significant improvements in security and fairness, making it better suit-ed for the future quantum era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The simplified blockchain data structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. One tenure cycle process in PoV [14]. into public blockchain, consortium blockchain, and private blockchain consensus. In terms of consistency, they can be categorized into strongly consistent, weakly consistent, or final consistent consensus. Additionally, based on the network model assumptions, consensus algorithms fall into three types: synchronous, partially synchronous, and asynchronous net￾work consensus, with… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A quantum hypergraph state with seven vertices and three hypergraphs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Circuit diagram of a quantum blockchain using weighted hypergraph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A possible hybrid network model with five different roles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Three steps of quantum voting in Q-PnV. After the preparing and distributing, each voter will perform a security test to ensure that the distributed quantum states are intact. Since the order of test does not affect the results, we assume that voter V0 starts the test.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quantum block generated during one tenure cycle are linked by entanglement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Implementation of a 3-blockchain circuit proposed by Orts et al. [9]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A technical solution for the rule of law, peace, security, and evolvability of global cyberspace -- solve the three genetic defects of IP network

    cs.CR 2024-12 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper claims IP networks are inherently insecure and unable to evolve, and proposes the CoG-MIN architecture with blockchain governance and cyberspace customs as a complete replacement, backed by self-reported tes...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [27]

    Self-tallying quantum anonymous voting,

    Q. Wang, C. Yu, F. Gao, H. Qi, and Q. Wen, “Self-tallying quantum anonymous voting,” Physical Review A , vol. 94, no. 2, p. 022333, Aug

    work page

  2. [1]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,

    P. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science . Santa Fe, NM, USA: IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1994, pp. 124–134. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee. org/document/365700/

    work page 1994

  3. [2]

    Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack,

    L. K. Grover, “Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 325–328, Jul

    work page

  4. [3]

    A Survey and Comparison of Post-Quantum and Quantum Blockchains,

    Z. Yang, H. Alfauri, B. Farkiani, R. Jain, R. D. Pietro, and A. Erbad, “A Survey and Comparison of Post-Quantum and Quantum Blockchains,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 967–1002, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10288193/

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    The Evolution of Quantum Key Distribution Networks: On the Road to the Qinternet,

    Y . Cao, Y . Zhao, Q. Wang, J. Zhang, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “The Evolution of Quantum Key Distribution Networks: On the Road to the Qinternet,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 839–894, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9684555/

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Quantum-secured blockchain,

    E. O. Kiktenko, N. O. Pozhar, M. N. Anufriev, A. S. Trushechkin, R. R. Yunusov, Y . V . Kurochkin, A. I. Lvovsky, and A. K. Fedorov, “Quantum-secured blockchain,” Quantum Science and Technology , vol. 3, no. 3, p. 035004, Jul. 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-9565/aabc6b

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aabc6b 2018

  7. [6]

    Quantum Blockchain Using Entanglement in Time,

    D. Rajan and M. Visser, “Quantum Blockchain Using Entanglement in Time,” Quantum Reports , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–11, Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/1/1/2

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Quantum blockchain using weighted hypergraph states,

    S. Banerjee, A. Mukherjee, and P. K. Panigrahi, “Quantum blockchain using weighted hypergraph states,” Physical Review Research , vol. 2, no. 1, p. 013322, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.013322 10

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013322 2020

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Efficient Quantum Blockchain With a Consensus Mechanism QDPoS,

    Q. Li, J. Wu, J. Quan, J. Shi, and S. Zhang, “Efficient Quantum Blockchain With a Consensus Mechanism QDPoS,” IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , vol. 17, pp. 3264–3276, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9872051/

    2022

  2. [9]

    Improving the implementation of quantum blockchain based on hypergraphs,

    F. Orts, R. Paulavi ˇcius, and E. Filatovas, “Improving the implementation of quantum blockchain based on hypergraphs,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 22, no. 9, p. 330, Sep. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11128-023-04096-w

    2023 doi

  3. [10]

    Quantum Blockchain Based on Dimensional Lifting Generalized Gram-Schmidt Procedure,

    K. Nilesh and P. K. Panigrahi, “Quantum Blockchain Based on Dimensional Lifting Generalized Gram-Schmidt Procedure,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 103 212–103 222, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9895383/

    2022

  4. [11]

    Blockchain consensus mechanism based on quantum zero-knowledge proof,

    X.-J. Wen, Y .-Z. Chen, X.-C. Fan, W. Zhang, Z.-Z. Yi, and J.-B. Fang, “Blockchain consensus mechanism based on quantum zero-knowledge proof,” Optics & Laser Technology , vol. 147, p. 107693, Mar

  5. [12]

    Blockchain Consensus Mechanism Based on Quantum Teleportation,

    X. Wen, Y . Chen, W. Zhang, Z. L. Jiang, and J. Fang, “Blockchain Consensus Mechanism Based on Quantum Teleportation,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 14, p. 2385, Jul. 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/14/2385

    2022

  6. [13]

    Consensus algorithm based on verifiable quantum random numbers,

    P. Wang, W. Chen, S. Lin, L. Liu, Z. Sun, and F. Zhang, “Consensus algorithm based on verifiable quantum random numbers,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems , vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 6857–6876, Oct

  7. [14]

    Proof of V ote: A High-Performance Consensus Protocol Based on V ote Mechanism & Consortium Blockchain,

    K. Li, H. Li, H. Hou, K. Li, and Y . Chen, “Proof of V ote: A High-Performance Consensus Protocol Based on V ote Mechanism & Consortium Blockchain,” in 2017 IEEE 19th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 15th International Conference ...

    2017

  8. [15]

    PoV: An Efficient V oting-Based Consensus Algorithm for Consortium Blockchains,

    K. Li, H. Li, H. Wang, H. An, P. Lu, P. Yi, and F. Zhu, “PoV: An Efficient V oting-Based Consensus Algorithm for Consortium Blockchains,” Frontiers in Blockchain, vol. 3, p. 11, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fbloc.2020.00011/ full

    2020

  9. [16]

    Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ int.22865

    [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ int.22865

  10. [17]

    PnV: An Efficient Parallel Consensus Protocol Integrating Proof and V oting,

    H. Wang, H. Li, P. Fan, J. Kang, S. Deng, and X. Zhu, “PnV: An Efficient Parallel Consensus Protocol Integrating Proof and V oting,” Applied Sciences , vol. 14, no. 8, p. 3510, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/8/3510

    2024

  11. [18]

    Principles and Applications of Blockchain Sys- tems: How to Break Through Consensus Trilemma in Consortium Blockchains,

    H. Wang and H. Li, “Principles and Applications of Blockchain Sys- tems: How to Break Through Consensus Trilemma in Consortium Blockchains,” in Wiley-IEEE Press, 2024, pp. 72–76, unpublished

    2024

  12. [19]

    On Parallel Mechanism of Consortium Blockchain: Take PoV as an example,

    Y . Bai, Y . Zhi, H. Li, H. Wang, P. Lu, and C. Ma, “On Parallel Mechanism of Consortium Blockchain: Take PoV as an example,” in 2021 The 3rd International Conference on Blockchain Technology . Shanghai China: ACM, Mar. 2021, pp. 147–154. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.or...

    2021

  13. [20]

    Performance Modeling of PBFT Consensus Process for Permissioned Blockchain Network (Hyperledger Fabric),

    H. Sukhwani, J. M. Martinez, X. Chang, K. S. Trivedi, and A. Rindos, “Performance Modeling of PBFT Consensus Process for Permissioned Blockchain Network (Hyperledger Fabric),” in 2017 IEEE 36th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS) . Hong Kong, Hong Kong: IEEE, Sep....

    2017

  14. [21]

    A Data Lightweight Scheme for Parallel Proof of V ote Consensus,

    Z. Wang, H. Li, H. Wang, Z. Xiao, P. Lu, Z. Yang, M. Zhang, and P. H. J. Chong, “A Data Lightweight Scheme for Parallel Proof of V ote Consensus,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . Orlando, FL, USA: IEEE, Dec. 2021, pp. 3656–3662. [Online]. Availab...

    2021

  15. [22]

    Practical byzantine fault tolerance,

    M. Castro, B. Liskov, and others, “Practical byzantine fault tolerance,” in OsDI, vol. 99, 1999, pp. 173–186, issue: 1999

    1999

  16. [23]

    Quantum hypergraph states,

    M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, “Quantum hypergraph states,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 15, no. 11, p. 113022, Nov. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1367-2630/15/11/113022

    2013

  17. [24]

    Encoding hypergraphs into quantum states,

    R. Qu, J. Wang, Z.-s. Li, and Y .-r. Bao, “Encoding hypergraphs into quantum states,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular , and Optical Physics, vol. 87, no. 2, p. 022311, 2013, publisher: APS

    2013

  18. [25]

    Optimizing Parallel Proof of V ote Consensus Based on Mimic Security in Consortium Blockchains,

    Z. Xiao, H. Li, H. Wang, G. Yang, Q. Ye, S. Zou, P. Lu, and Q. Lyu, “Optimizing Parallel Proof of V ote Consensus Based on Mimic Security in Consortium Blockchains,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . Osaka, Japan: IEEE, Dec. 2022, pp. 3215–3224. [O...

    2022

  19. [26]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, “Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,” Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, p. eaam9288, Oct

  20. [28]

    Quantum Internet—Applications, Functionalities, Enabling Technologies, Challenges, and Research Directions,

    A. Singh, K. Dev, H. Siljak, H. D. Joshi, and M. Magarini, “Quantum Internet—Applications, Functionalities, Enabling Technologies, Challenges, and Research Directions,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2218–2247, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://...

    2021

  21. [33]

    A comprehensive review of quantum random number generators: concepts, classification and the origin of randomness,

    V . Mannalatha, S. Mishra, and A. Pathak, “A comprehensive review of quantum random number generators: concepts, classification and the origin of randomness,” Quantum Information Processing , vol. 22, no. 12, p. 439, Dec. 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //link.springer.com/1...

    2023 doi

  22. [1997]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 79.325

    doi

  23. [2016]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 94.022333

    doi

  24. [2018]

    Available: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science

    [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science. aam9288

    doi

  25. [2022]

    Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0030399221007817

    [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0030399221007817

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.