mirror of
https://github.com/lux-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-11-03 05:07:46 +00:00
zeekay
21038c00b9
Add explicit, literature-backed comparison scaffolds to: - lux-pq-consensus-benchmarks (sec 09): vs Mysticeti-C, HotStuff/-2, Tendermint, Snowman - lux-quasar-benchmarks (sec 15): vs Mysticeti-C, HotStuff-2, CometBFT, Snowman, TowerBFT - lux-fhe-benchmarks (sec 12): vs TFHE-rs, Concrete, OpenFHE, Microsoft SEAL - lux-zap-benchmarks (sec 14): vs Protobuf, FlatBuffers, Cap'n Proto, gRPC, QUIC, JSON-RPC - evmgpu-benchmark (sec 13): vs geth, reth, erigon, evmone, Block-STM, pevm Lux/competitor columns explicitly marked [TBD-measure] where not yet benchmarked against the competitor's own published harness. Every competitor cell is sourced to a cited paper, repo benchmark, or vendor doc. Each scaffold ends with a Reproducibility spec (hardware, software pins, commands, decision rule) for the actual controlled run. No invented Lux numbers; existing internal numbers retained but flagged as not-yet-apples-to-apples vs literature.
80 lines
3.2 KiB
TeX
80 lines
3.2 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
|
|
\usepackage{../shared/luxcover}
|
|
\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, graphicx, hyperref, booktabs, multirow, xcolor}
|
|
\usepackage{enumitem}
|
|
\usepackage{pgfplots}
|
|
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.18}
|
|
\usepackage{subcaption}
|
|
\usepackage{algorithm}
|
|
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
|
|
\usepackage{siunitx}
|
|
|
|
\sisetup{group-separator={,}}
|
|
|
|
\definecolor{luxblue}{HTML}{2563EB}
|
|
\definecolor{luxpurple}{HTML}{7C3AED}
|
|
\definecolor{cosgray}{HTML}{6B7280}
|
|
\definecolor{hotred}{HTML}{DC2626}
|
|
\definecolor{narworange}{HTML}{EA580C}
|
|
\definecolor{ethblue}{HTML}{627EEA}
|
|
\definecolor{solgreen}{HTML}{14F195}
|
|
\definecolor{avaxred}{HTML}{E84142}
|
|
|
|
\title{Quasar Consensus: A Comparative Benchmark Study\\of Post-Quantum Byzantine Fault Tolerance}
|
|
\author{
|
|
Zach Kelling\thanks{Corresponding author: [email protected]}\\
|
|
\textit{Lux Industries, Inc.}\\
|
|
\texttt{[email protected]}
|
|
}
|
|
\date{2025}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\luxcoverpage
|
|
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
We present a comprehensive benchmark evaluation of Quasar, the quantum-secure consensus
|
|
protocol powering Lux Network, against six production blockchain consensus systems:
|
|
Tendermint/CometBFT (Cosmos), HotStuff/LibraBFT (Meta/Aptos), Narwhal+Tusk (Sui),
|
|
Ethereum PoS (Casper FFG + LMD GHOST), Solana (Tower BFT + PoH), and the Snow
|
|
metastable-sampling family (prior art for probabilistic-finality protocols). Measurements span eight categories: finality time, transaction
|
|
throughput, validator scalability, message complexity, post-quantum signature overhead,
|
|
dual-certificate finality cost, network partition recovery, and geographic distribution
|
|
effects. With CPU BLS aggregation, Quasar achieves 200\,ms median finality across
|
|
three geographically distributed datacenters. With GPU-accelerated BLS (Metal/CUDA),
|
|
single-datacenter finality reaches \textbf{10\,ms}---enabling \num{4761904}\,TPS with
|
|
finality at Lux's 1\,B gas block limit (\num{47619} txs/block at 21{,}000 gas/tx).
|
|
CPU BLS provides a 100\,ms fallback on commodity hardware.
|
|
At 100 validators, consensus-layer throughput reaches \num{10400}\,TPS with linear
|
|
O($n$) message complexity and graceful degradation under Byzantine conditions---without
|
|
sacrificing quantum resistance. All benchmarks were conducted on identical hardware
|
|
across three geographically distributed datacenters.
|
|
\end{abstract}
|
|
|
|
\tableofcontents
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
%% ============================================================================
|
|
|
|
\input{sections/01-introduction}
|
|
\input{sections/02-experimental-setup}
|
|
\input{sections/03-benchmark-1-finality-time}
|
|
\input{sections/04-benchmark-2-throughput}
|
|
\input{sections/05-benchmark-3-validator-scalability}
|
|
\input{sections/06-benchmark-4-message-complexity}
|
|
\input{sections/07-benchmark-5-post-quantum-readiness}
|
|
\input{sections/08-benchmark-6-dual-certificate-finality}
|
|
\input{sections/09-benchmark-7-network-partition-recovery}
|
|
\input{sections/10-benchmark-8-geographic-distribution}
|
|
\input{sections/11-benchmark-9-pipelined-consensus}
|
|
\input{sections/12-composite-scoring}
|
|
\input{sections/13-discussion}
|
|
\input{sections/14-related-work}
|
|
\input{sections/15-literature-backed-comparison}
|
|
\input{sections/16-raw-data-tables}
|
|
\input{sections/17-quasar-parameter-sensitivity}
|
|
\input{sections/18-reproducibility}
|
|
\input{sections/99-conclusion}
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|