Comparing network stability and performance between Proof of Time (Zamora), Proof of History (Solana), and Sharding (NEAR) consensus mechanisms
Reduction in orphan blocks
Under moderate conditions
Slot time comparison
Consistent timing model
Slots simulated
Per configuration
Orphan Rate Reduction
6.78%
3.40%
Deep Reorg (≥2) Reduction
0.46%
0.14%
Orphan Rate Reduction
5.13%
4.01%
Deep Reorg (≥2) Reduction
0.22%
0.13%
Zamora (PoT): Uses VDF/DTB time gating to systematically reduce forks. 50-69% fewer orphan blocks than PoH, matching NEAR's stability.
Solana (PoH): Fast but vulnerable to network spikes. Higher orphan rates during congestion despite 400ms slots.
NEAR (Sharding): Stable with Nightshade consensus but slower slot time (1s) and finality (2s) vs Zamora's <1s finality.
Performance Summary: Zamora achieves Solana-level speed (100K+ TPS) with NEAR-level stability, plus unique time-verification capabilities.
| Feature | Zamora (PoT) | Solana (PoH) | NEAR (Sharding) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak TPS | 100,000+ | 65,000 | 100,000 |
| Slot Time | 400ms | 400ms | 1s |
| Finality | <1s | 6.4s | 2s |
| Orphan Rate (2% spike) | 3.4% | 6.8% | ~3-4% |
| Time Verification | VDF+DTB | PoH only | None |
| Parallel Execution | ✅ Tower+Rayon | ✅ Sealevel | ✅ Sharding |
| Enterprise Features | ✅ HSM, BLS12-381 | ✅ Ed25519 | ✅ Ed25519 |