Cetus-rahake-hinta

OKCoin Europe Ltd

54930069NLWEIGLHXU42

Cetus Protocol

The Sui blockchain utilizes a Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) consensus mechanism optimized for high throughput and low latency. Core Components 1. Mysten Consensus Protocol: The Sui consensus is based on Mysten Labs' Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocol, which builds on principles of Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (pBFT) but introduces key optimizations for performance. Leaderless Design: Unlike traditional BFT models, Sui does not rely on a single leader to propose blocks. Validators can propose blocks simultaneously, increasing efficiency and reducing the risks associated with leader failure or attacks. Parallel Processing: Transactions can be processed in parallel, maximizing network throughput by utilizing multiple cores and threads. This allows for faster confirmation of transactions and high scalability. 2. Transaction Validation: Validators are responsible for receiving transaction requests from clients and processing them. Each transaction includes digital signatures and must meet the network’s rules to be considered valid. Validators can propose transactions simultaneously, unlike many other networks that require a sequential, leader-driven process. 3. Optimistic Execution: Optimistic Consensus: Sui allows validators to process certain non-contentious, independent transactions without waiting for full consensus. This is known as optimistic execution and helps reduce transaction latency for many use cases, allowing for fast finality in most cases. 4. Finality and Latency: The system only requires three rounds of communication between validators to finalize a transaction. This results in low-latency consensus and rapid transaction confirmation times, achieving scalability while maintaining security. Fault Tolerance: The system can tolerate up to one-third of validators being faulty or malicious without compromising the integrity of the consensus process.

Security and Economic Incentives: 1. Validators: Validators stake SUI tokens to participate in the consensus process. They earn rewards for validating transactions and securing the network. Slashing: Validators can be penalized (slashed) for malicious behavior, such as double-signing or failing to properly validate transactions. This helps maintain network security and incentivizes honest behavior. 2. Delegation: Token holders can delegate their SUI tokens to trusted validators. In return, they share in the rewards earned by validators. This encourages widespread participation in securing the network. Fees on the SUI Blockchain 1. Transaction Fees: Users pay transaction fees to validators for processing and confirming transactions. These fees are calculated based on the computational resources required to process the transaction. Fees are paid in SUI tokens, which is the native cryptocurrency of the Sui blockchain. 2. Dynamic Fee Model: The transaction fees on Sui are dynamic, meaning they adjust based on network demand and the complexity of the transactions being processed.

2024-09-25

2025-09-25

2319.34987 (kWh/a)

The energy consumption of this asset is aggregated across multiple components: To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the network(s) sui is calculated first. For the energy consumption of the token, a fraction of the energy consumption of the network is attributed to the token, which is determined based on the activity of the crypto-asset within the network. When calculating the energy consumption, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is used - if available - to determine all implementations of the asset in scope. The mappings are updated regularly, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the hardware used and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions that are verified with best effort using empirical data. In general, participants are assumed to be largely economically rational. As a precautionary principle, we make assumptions on the conservative side when in doubt, i.e. making higher estimates for the adverse impacts.