###### Abstract
A common consensus mechanism is proof-of-work (PoW), in which the parties must demonstrate their rights to add a node by solving an increasingly complicated computational problem to ensure authentication and compliance, including identifying thresholds for harm, such as leading zeros [19]. Given that the PoW protocol needs tremendous computing power to solve the block complexity in Bitcoin [20], another consensus protocol called proof-of-stack (PoS) was proposed to overcome the problems of the PoW protocol. Despite the high complexity of the PoS consensus, this protocol may be vulnerable to stack problems if more than half of the network is manipulated to prevent a new block from being distributed to confirm transactions [21]. A PoS protocol separates stake blocks according to the relative hashing rates of miners (i.e., their computational power) in relation to the resource capacity of existing miners [22]. This approach makes the choice fair and prevents the richest participant from dominating the network. Many blockchains, such as Ethereum [23], opt for PoS because power consumption and scalability are greatly reduced. Several consensus approaches, including Byzantine fault tolerance (BFT) and its variants, are also available [24]. However, despite the application of consensus protocols, which prevent many security breaches, several malicious attacks have occasionally hampered the growth of blockchain technology. For example, certain attacks, such as Eclipse, Sybil, BGP deterrence, and 51%, are triggered as a result of attempts to penetrate the blockchain network. Amongst these attacks, the 51% attack has received the least attention from researchers due to its high costs. However, recent security incidents have demonstrated that 51% attacks can be carried out against various contemporary cryptocurrencies [25]. Compared with other consensus protocols, PoW immediately challenges 51% attacks, where recent attacks have mainly focused on PoW-dependent cryptocurrencies [26]. This is one of the most severe dangers associated with a PoW-based cryptocurrency because it assumes that if a fraudulent peer network is allowed to obtain more than 50% of the network assets (i.e., computing power), its members become the majority of the network's decision makers. Peers with superior processing skills could dominate the network because they have the capability to mine numerous blocks as peers compete for fast access. They can easily exploit the blockchain by creating fake transactions, and the fraud perpetrated by other users may result in large-scale financial losses. To prevent this attack, researchers have performed various studies. The majority of them recommended combining two or more resource proofs into a hybrid protocol to combat this attack [27; 28; 29; 30; 31]. However, mixing two or more existing protocols (hybrid protocol) makes the network resistant to this attack. Therefore, the recent implementation of hybrid protocols has other challenges and drawbacks that need to be addressed. For example, several have added voting systems, ticket delivery systems, fines, special nodes and block validator groups to deter malicious behaviour [32]. These measures are successful in protecting the network against 51% attacks. However, their primary weakness is in rewarding block mining to investors, which pertains to the number of Bitcoins you receive if you are successful in mining a block. Undoubtedly, the investor invests his hard-earned money in a cryptocurrency to reap the benefits of his investment. These benefits may be derived from the block mining reward. In this scenario, the accuracy of the block generation time interval is crucial in ensuring that this benefit is delivered to the appropriate consumer at the appropriate time. However, the voting, ticket and other systems are not time-controlled, and no consistent distribution of benefits occurs over the block reward generation intervals.