Introduction: The integration of blockchain technology with Internet of Things (IoT) devices in smart city deployments presents significant technical challenges, particularly regarding consensus mechanism design. Traditional blockchain consensus protocols such as Proof of Work (PoW) and standard Proof of Stake (PoS) impose computational, energy, and latency requirements that exceed the capabilities of resource-constrained IoT devices, motivating the development of lightweight alternatives. Materials and methods: This paper examines lightweight consensus mechanisms specifically designed for edge-optimised blockchain deployments, evaluates hybrid on-chain/off-chain architectural patterns, and presents a comparative analysis of emerging solutions. We propose four research hypotheses (H1–H4) regarding hierarchical consensus performance and validate them through extensive discrete-event simulation across five smart city domains, using a 500-node testbed calibrated to representative urban workloads. A novel Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN)-based process model formalises the three-tier consensus workflow, and security analysis quantifies Byzantine fault tolerance guarantees. Results: The proposed three-tier framework achieves a 94.7% ± 2.3% reduction in on-chain transactions while maintaining cryptographic auditability, with consensus latency under 500 ms for district-level operations (p 0.8). Conclusions: Hierarchical consensus architectures, combined with selective off-chain processing, offer the most promising pathway towards scalable, secure blockchain–IoT integration in smart city contexts. Through an examination of five practical smart city use cases, we demonstrate that tailored consensus approaches can achieve the security guarantees necessary for critical urban infrastructure while respecting the computational limitations of deployed sensor networks. Remaining challenges in dynamic validator management, cross-chain interoperability, quantum resistance, and regulatory compliance are identified as priorities for future work.
Muthu Ramachandran (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: