TARU PUBLICATIONS
Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences and Cryptography cover
Open Access ·Peer-reviewed·ISSN (Online): 2169-0065·ISSN (Print): 0972-0529

Monthly Journal: Publishes theoretical and applied research in all areas of Discrete Mathematical Sciences, Cryptography, Combinatorics, Elliptic Curves and Information Security.

Issues up to 2022 co-published with and available at:Taylor & Francis Online
submissions@tarupublications.com
Open Access Research Article

Quantum-resistant hierarchical consensus protocol (QRHCP) for enhanced security in blockchain networks

,

* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details

pp. 3091–3100Vol. 28Issue 8December 2025DOI: 10.47974/JDMSC-2585 Crossmark XML
Received:
09 Jul 2025
Published Online:
08 Dec 2025
Article type:
Research Article
Language:
EN
Article no.:
JDMSC-2585
Pages:
3091–3100

Abstract

Blockchain networks face escalating security challenges, including quantum computing threats, Sybil attacks, and scalability bottlenecks. Existing consensus mechanisms like Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) lack adaptive security features and quantum resistance. This paper introduces the Quantum-Resistant Hierarchical Consensus Protocol (QRHCP), a novel hybrid framework combining Hierarchical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (HBFT), lattice-based post-quantum signatures, dynamic sharding, and a deception-based Sybil resistance mechanism. QRHCP organizes nodes in a multi-layered validation hierarchy, where root validators finalize blocks while edge validators process lightweight transactions. To counter quantum threats, we integrate CRYSTALS-Dilithium signatures in a dual-signature scheme, ensuring backward compatibility while transitioning to quantum-safe cryptography. Additionally, Adaptive Dynamic Sharding (ADS) optimizes network performance by dynamically splitting or merging shards based on real-time threat analysis. We evaluate QRHCP against Byzantine attack resistance, quantum vulnerability, and transaction throughput using a custom blockchain simulator. Results show 40% faster consensus latency compared to PBFT, 99.9% Sybil attack detection via the Decoy Chain Mechanism (DCM), and scalability up to 10,000 TPS under adaptive sharding. Our work provides a provably secure, quantum-resistant, and highly scalable consensus model for next-generation blockchain applications.

Keywords

Subject Classifications

Primary 93A30Secondary 49K15

References

[1] P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM J. Comput., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1484–1509 (Oct. 1997).
[2] H. Hadi, A. J. Obaid, and M. A. Alkhafaji, “Secure and efficient intelligent transport system based on cryptographic authentication mechanism for vehicular ad hoc networks,” J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1539–1554 (2024), doi: 10.47974/JDMSC-1936.
[3] D. Boneh, “Twenty years of attacks on the RSA cryptosystem,” Notices Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 203–213 (1999).
[4] L. Wang, J. Wu, R. Yuan, D. Zhang, J. Liu, S. Jiang, et al., “Dynamic adaptive cross-chain trading mode for multi-microgrid joint operation,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 21, p. 6096 (2020).
[5] R. Avanzi, J. Bos, L. Ducas, E. Kiltz, T. Lepoint, V. Lyubashevsky, et al., “CRYSTALS-Kyber algorithm specifications and supporting documentation,” NIST PQC Round, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–43 (2019).
[6] T. Güneysu, “Timing attacks meet side-channel analysis: Breaking RSA-CRT in practice,” in Proc. CHES, vol. 10529, pp. 257–274 (2018).
[7] G. Olaoye, Quantum Cryptanalysis: Breaking Classical Encryption with Shor’s and Grover’s Algorithms (2025).
[8] A. K. Lenstra, “Dynamic RSA variants: Security and performance trade-offs,” J. Cryptol., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1989–2021 (Oct. 2020).
[9] K. G. Gupta, B. Unhelkar, S. S. Shankar, T. C. Chakrabarti, P. Chakrabarti, B. Sivaneasan, and M. Margala, “A novel optimization-based time-enabled proxy re-encryption approach for securing e-health data in cloud environments: An interdisciplinary statistical perspective,” J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2419–2429 (2024), doi: 10.47974/JDMSC-2015.
[10] F. S. Gharehchopogh, A. Ucan, T. Ibrikci, B. Arasteh, and G. Isik, “Slime mould algorithm: A comprehensive survey of its variants and applications,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2683–2723 (2023).
[11] N. Mouha and C. Celi, “A vulnerability in implementations of SHA-3, SHAKE, EdDSA, and other NIST-approved algorithms,” in Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conf., Cham: Springer, pp. 3–28 (Apr. 2023).
[12] D. Coppersmith, “Small solutions to polynomial equations,” in Eurocrypt, vol. 1070, pp. 20–31 (1996).
[13] D. Catalano, P. Q. Nguyen, and J. Stern, “The hardness of Hensel lifting: The case of RSA and discrete logarithm,” in Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Cryptol. Inf. Security, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 299–310 (Nov. 2002).
[14] N. Sharma, N. S. Yadav, and S. Sharma, “Classification of UNSW-NB15 dataset using exploratory data analysis using ensemble learning,” EAI Endorsed Trans. Ind. Netw. Intell. Syst., vol. 8, no. 29, Art. no. 29 (2021), doi: 10.4108/eai.13-10-2021.171319.
[15] N. Sharma and N. S. Yadav, “Ensemble learning based classification of UNSW-NB15 dataset using exploratory data analysis,” in 2021 9th Int. Conf. Reliability, Infocom Technol. Optimization (ICRITO), pp. 1–7 (Sep. 2021).
[16] N. Moustafa, J. Hu, and J. Slay, “A holistic review of Network Anomaly Detection Systems: A comprehensive survey,” J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 128, pp. 33–55 (Feb. 2019), doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2018.12.006.
[17] S. A. Salman, F. A. Sadiq, and V. A. Z. Al-Aabdeen, “Construction of cubic magic with cryptography application,” J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1641–1651 (2024), doi: 10.47974/JDMSC-2007.
[18] K. Sharma, N. Kavita, and G. Aggarwal, “Quantum-resistant adaptive RSA (QR-ARSA) for secure networks,” J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr., vol. 28, no. 5-B, pp. 2025–2035 (2025), doi: 10.47974/JDMSC-2420.

Views: 85Downloads: 15Citations: 0