# Comparative Study of Blockchain Hashing Algorithms with a Proposal for HashLEA
## 5 Security and Performance Analysis
### Software and Hardware Efficiency Analysis  
In order to evaluate the performance efficiency of the proposed HashLEA function, a comprehensive comparison is conducted with a number of selected key algorithms, including X11, X13, X15, X17, Scrypt, Quark, Keccak, Xevan, Fugue, Groestl, Myr-Groestl, SHAvite-3, Skein, Lyra2z, Lyra2 re, Lyra2 REv2, and Blake. The execution times are measured for the hashing of messages of varying sizes (100 KB to 10 MB), with the results averaging over 1000 iterations. The results, presented in Figure 3, demonstrate that HashLEA consistently exhibits superior performance compared with other hash functions across all tested message sizes. To illustrate, the processing of a 100 KB message is completed in 0.157 ms, which is significantly faster than the 0.233 ms required by X11 and the 0.235 ms required by Quark. Similarly, for larger inputs, such as 10 MB, HashLEA completes the hashing process in 15.48 ms, which is notably faster than Quark 20.564 ms and Keccak 42.26 ms. The Scrypt is a computationally intensive algorithm due to its use of a password-based KDF, Fugue, which performs heavy truncation of the intermediate state to form the output digest. Additionally, the Groestl algorithm employs a compression function constructed from two fixed, large, distinct permutations, resulting in significantly longer execution times for these three hash functions. To illustrate, Scrypt processes a 10 MB message in 135.056 ms, while Groestl takes 118.737 ms. Consequently, these algorithms are less suitable for applications that require real-time performance in the software domain. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(\mathbf{Output}\) & \(\mathbf{N_{s}max}\) & \(\mathbf{D_{hash}max}\) & \(\mathbf{D_{hash}min}\) & \(\mathbf{D_{hash}mean}\) & \(\mathbf{D_{avr}}\) \\ \hline
**X11** & 256 & 3 & 3799 & 1588 & 2740 & 85.64 \\
**X13** & 256 & 3 & 4048 & 1744 & 2723 & 85.12 \\
**X15** & 256 & 2 & 3881 & 1737 & 2728 & 85.25 \\
**X17** & 256 & 3 & 3916 & 1770 & 2726 & 85.19 \\
**Scrypt** & 256 & 2 & 3770 & 1847 & 2745 & 85.78 \\
**Quark** & 256 & 2 & 3907 & 1746 & 2740 & 85.64 \\
**Keccak** & 256 & 2 & 3884 & 1800 & 2720 & 85.03 \\
**Xevan** & 256 & 3 & 3872 & 1789 & 2717 & 84.93 \\
**Fugue** & 256 & 3 & 3810 & 1497 & 2730 & 85.34 \\
**Groestl** & 256 & 2 & 3977 & 1762 & 2732 & 85.39 \\
**Myr-Groestl** & 256 & 3 & 4324 & 1708 & 2733 & 85.42 \\
**SHAvite-3** & 256 & 2 & 4073 & 1771 & 2719 & 84.99 \\
**Skein** & 256 & 3 & 4243 & 1752 & 2740 & 85.65 \\
**Lyra2z** & 256 & 3 & 3909 & 1459 & 2716 & 84.88 \\
**Lyra2 re** & 256 & 2 & 3689 & 1698 & 2743 & 85.72 \\
**Lyra2 REv2** & 256 & 3 & 3709 & 1824 & 2746 & 85.84 \\
**Blake** & 256 & 2 & 3987 & 1587 & 2726 & 85.2 \\
**HashLEA** & 256 & 2 & 4093 & 1523 & 2740 & 85.64 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The absolute difference results. By employing ARX operations and a lightweight block cipher-based structure, HashLEA achieves a balance between computational efficiency and cryptographic robustness. ARX operations are inherently simple and fast, making them highly suitable for software implementations on general-purpose processors. Also, due to the uniform and predictable structure of ARX operations, vulnerability to some types of side-channel attacks, timing, or differential power analysis is significantly reduced, hence enhancing security. Its software-oriented design makes it ideal for resource-constrained environments, as demonstrated by its efficiency across all tested scenarios. The performance comparison highlights the practicality of HashLEA for use cases demanding both speed and robust security, such as blockchain and IoT applications. The other evaluation of the HashLEA algorithm is conducted on a real hardware platform, specifically a Raspberry Pi 4 with an ARM Cortex-A72 processor, to assess its performance in the context of blockchain-based IoT applications.