Table 1.
Direct comparison of CrustChain with Filecoin and hybrid protocols.
Table 2.
Comparison of blockchain consensus mechanisms.
Fig 1.
CrustChain’s layered architecture with (1) Cryptographic Base Layer, (2) Storage Consensus Plane, (3) Sharded Execution Environment.
Fig 2.
CrustChain system architecture: Storage Clients fragment/encrypt data; Consensus Layer handles PoC, sharding, and atomic commits; Mining Nodes store data and validate transactions.
Arrows denote critical data/control flows.
Fig 2.
CrustChain architecture: Data flow from client encryption through Crust Network storage with PoC consensus.
Table 3.
Sample input transactions with integrity metadata.
Table 4.
Node configuration.
Table 5.
Throughput (TPS) vs. network size. Values for CrustChain, Filecoin, and Chia are reported as mean (standard deviation) over 10 runs.
Table 6.
Latency (ms) vs. Shard Count. Values for CrustChain and Filecoin are reported as mean (standard deviation) over 10 runs. Chia (non-sharded) has fixed confirmation latency.
Table 7.
Storage efficiency comparison. Chia’s high ledger size reflects its on-chain storage model.
Table 8.
DDoS resilience (Max throughput in Gbps).
Fig 4.
Retrieval success under adversarial conditions.
Fig 5.
Simulation benchmarks: (a) Throughput vs. network size, (b) Latency vs. shard count, (c) Chain quality under adversarial nodes.
Fig 6.
Empirical attack resilience: (a) Grinding success decreases exponentially with VDF constraints; (b) Adaptive corruption fails due to rotating committees.
Table 9.
Decentralization comparison.
Table 10.
Comprehensive performance comparison.
Fig 7.
Normalized performance comparison across leading blockchain platforms, where the index aggregates normalized throughput, latency, storage cost, node count, and energy efficiency.
CrustChain achieves the highest balanced score (2.98), outperforming specialized competitors in overall system performance.
Table 11.
Advantages and disadvantages of CrustChain.