Understanding the fundamental design principles that differentiate public and private blockchains is essential for architects and developers. These core concepts dictate security, performance, and governance models.
LABS
Guides
Public vs Private Blockchains: Key Architectural Differences
A technical comparison of public and private blockchain architectures, covering consensus models, node participation, data visibility, and ideal use cases for each.
Chainscore © 2025
key-concepts
ARCHITECTURAL FOUNDATIONS
Core Concepts
05
Transaction Throughput & Finality
Performance is a key differentiator. Public blockchains prioritize decentralization over speed, resulting in lower throughput (e.g., Ethereum ~15-30 TPS) and probabilistic finality. Private blockchains sacrifice decentralization for high performance, achieving thousands of TPS and immediate, deterministic finality.
- Public: Solana's high-throughput design is an outlier, targeting 65,000 TPS.
- Private: Hyperledger Fabric can achieve over 3,000 TPS in optimized configurations.
15-30 TPS
Ethereum Base Layer
3k+ TPS
Private Chain Benchmark
06
Token Economics
Public blockchains require a native cryptocurrency (e.g., ETH, BTC) to pay for transaction fees (gas) and secure the network via staking or mining rewards. Private blockchains typically have no need for a native token; transaction costs are internal, and security is enforced by contractual agreements between known participants.
- Public: Gas fees on Ethereum fund validator rewards and burn ETH.
- Private: A J.P. Morgan-run blockchain settles transactions in fiat, not a token.
CORE DIFFERENCES
Architectural Comparison Table
A technical breakdown of the fundamental architectural properties that define public and private blockchain networks.
| Architectural Feature | Public Blockchain | Private Blockchain |
|---|---|---|
Consensus Mechanism | Proof-of-Work (PoW), Proof-of-Stake (PoS), etc. | Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT), Raft |
Network Access | Permissionless (Open) | Permissioned (Restricted) |
Transaction Finality | Probabilistic (e.g., ~6 blocks for Bitcoin) | Deterministic (Immediate upon consensus) |
Transaction Throughput (TPS) | 10-1000+ (varies by chain) | 1000-10,000+ |
Transaction Cost | Variable gas fees (e.g., $0.10 - $50+) | Negligible or fixed internal cost |
Data Privacy | Transparent ledger (All data public) | Data can be encrypted or kept private |
Governance | Decentralized, on-chain or off-chain proposals | Centralized, defined by consortium or owner |
Primary Use Case | Decentralized applications (dApps), DeFi, NFTs | Supply chain, enterprise data sharing, internal auditing |
consensus-mechanisms
ARCHITECTURAL CORE
Consensus Mechanisms
The consensus protocol is the fundamental rulebook for validating transactions and achieving network agreement. Public and private blockchains adopt radically different models to suit their trust and performance requirements.
access-control-models
PERMISSIONING ARCHITECTURES
Access Control Models
The fundamental difference in who can read, write, and validate transactions defines a blockchain's governance and use cases.
06
Choosing the Right Model
Select based on application requirements, not ideology. Choose Public if you need: Censorship resistance, open innovation, tokenization, or a credibly neutral base layer. Over 90% of DeFi and NFT value is on public chains. Choose Private/Consortium if you need: Data privacy (GDPR/HIPAA), high throughput (1000+ TPS), known legal counterparties, or specific regulatory compliance. Used by enterprises like Walmart for supply chain.
>90%
DeFi TVL on Public Chains
1000+ TPS
Typical Private Chain Target
performance-tradeoffs
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
Performance and Scalability Tradeoffs
Public and private blockchains make fundamentally different tradeoffs between decentralization, security, and speed. These design choices directly impact their performance characteristics and scalability ceilings.
01
Transaction Throughput (TPS)
Private blockchains achieve high throughput by limiting consensus participants. Systems like Hyperledger Fabric can process 1,000-10,000 TPS by using a small, known set of validators.
Public blockchains prioritize decentralization, which caps throughput. Ethereum handles 15-30 TPS on its base layer, while Solana's optimized architecture pushes 2,000-3,000 TPS by using Proof of History.
02
Transaction Finality
Finality refers to the irreversible confirmation of a transaction.
- Private Blockchains: Offer instant finality (1-2 seconds) using BFT-style consensus like PBFT. Transactions are final once a supermajority of known nodes agrees.
- Public Blockchains: Use probabilistic finality. On Proof of Work chains like Bitcoin, a transaction is considered final after 6 block confirmations (~1 hour). Proof of Stake chains like Ethereum have single-slot finality (~12 seconds) after the attestation period.
03
Network Latency
Latency is the time for a transaction to propagate and be included in a block.
Private networks have low latency (< 1 second) because nodes are in controlled data centers with high-bandwidth connections.
Public networks experience higher latency (5-15 seconds) due to global node distribution and the gossip protocol needed for peer-to-peer broadcast. This is a necessary tradeoff for censorship resistance.
04
Scalability Approaches
Both paradigms use different methods to scale.
Public Blockchain Scaling:
- Layer 2 Rollups (Optimism, Arbitrum): Batch transactions off-chain, settling proofs on L1. Can increase effective TPS to 2,000-4,000.
- Sharding (Ethereum Danksharding): Splits the network into parallel chains.
Private Blockchain Scaling: Primarily scales via permissioned node addition and modular architecture (separating execution from ordering).
05
Storage & State Growth
Managing the growing ledger size (state bloat) is a critical scalability challenge.
Public chains like Ethereum have a ~1 TB full archive node requirement. Solutions include state expiry and stateless clients.
Private chains control state growth through data pruning policies and channel-based architectures (e.g., Fabric channels), where only relevant participants store specific data, keeping node requirements low.
06
Cost of Operation
Operational costs stem from consensus and resource usage.
Public Chain Costs:
- Transaction Fees (Gas): Users pay for computation/storage. Ethereum average fee can range from $1 to $50+.
- Node Operation: Running a full node requires significant hardware and bandwidth.
Private Chain Costs:
- Infrastructure: Fixed costs for cloud/on-prem servers for the consortium.
- No Gas Fees: Transactions are typically free for permitted users, as costs are borne by the consortium members.
security-models
ARCHITECTURAL FOUNDATIONS
Security and Trust Models
The trust assumptions and security mechanisms in public and private blockchains are fundamentally different, influencing their resilience, attack surfaces, and governance.
01
Consensus & Sybil Resistance
Public blockchains use cryptoeconomic consensus like Proof-of-Work (Bitcoin) or Proof-of-Stake (Ethereum) to achieve Sybil resistance. Security is decentralized; attackers must control a majority of hash power or staked value, making attacks extremely costly.
Private blockchains typically use permissioned consensus (e.g., Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance). Validators are known, vetted entities. Security relies on legal agreements and the assumption that a majority of these entities will not collude.
02
Attack Surface & Vulnerabilities
Public chains face a broad attack surface: 51% attacks, smart contract exploits (e.g., reentrancy), MEV (Maximal Extractable Value), and protocol-level bugs. The open nature invites constant probing.
Private chains have a narrower, more controlled attack surface. Primary risks include insider threats, compromised validator keys, and consensus failures if the pre-defined trust threshold (e.g., 2/3 of nodes) is breached by malicious actors.
03
Data Integrity & Finality
In public networks, probabilistic finality is common. A transaction is considered final after a sufficient number of confirmations, with the probability of reversal decreasing exponentially (e.g., 6 blocks for Bitcoin).
Private blockchains often achieve instant, deterministic finality. Once a block is validated by the consensus algorithm (e.g., PBFT), it is immediately and irreversibly finalized, as there is no risk of a competing chain from unknown miners.
04
Governance & Upgrade Paths
Public blockchain upgrades require decentralized, on-chain or social governance (e.g., Ethereum Improvement Proposals). Changes are contentious and must achieve broad community consensus, making them slow but resistant to unilateral control.
Private blockchain governance is centralized and off-chain. A consortium or single entity can dictate protocol upgrades, rollbacks, and validator sets. This allows for rapid iteration but concentrates power and creates a single point of failure for decision-making.
05
Privacy & Confidentiality
Public chains offer transparency, not privacy. All transaction data is visible, though techniques like zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) can obfuscate details. This transparency is a security feature for auditability but a risk for sensitive data.
Private chains are designed for confidentiality. Access to the ledger and transaction details is restricted to authorized participants. Data can be encrypted or partitioned, but this reduces the network's ability to be publicly audited, shifting trust to the participants.
06
Cryptoeconomic Security
This is a defining feature of public blockchains. Security is enforced by financial incentives and penalties (slashing in PoS, block rewards in PoW). Validators/stakers are economically motivated to act honestly. The security budget is often tied to the native token's market cap.
Private blockchains lack native cryptoeconomic security. There is no token-based incentive or slashing mechanism. Security is enforced through legal contracts, reputation, and the threat of removal from the consortium, which are external to the protocol.
ARCHITECTURAL IMPLICATIONS
Use Cases by Type
Permissioned Networks for Business
Private blockchains are the default for enterprise and government applications where data privacy, regulatory compliance, and controlled access are non-negotiable. These networks use a consortium or permissioned model, where known, vetted entities operate the validating nodes.
Key Use Cases:
- Supply Chain Tracking: Hyperledger Fabric is used by Walmart for food traceability, sharing data only with authorized partners.
- Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Projects like China's digital yuan or the European Central Bank's digital euro experiments use permissioned ledgers to maintain monetary policy control.
- Interbank Settlements: The Utility Settlement Coin (USC) project by Fnality uses a private blockchain for real-time settlement between major financial institutions.
The architectural trade-off is scalability and privacy for decentralization. Transaction throughput (TPS) is higher as consensus among known nodes is faster, but the system relies on the trustworthiness of the consortium members.
PERMISSIONED ARCHITECTURES
Hybrid and Consortium Models
Hybrid and consortium blockchains blend elements of public and private networks to create tailored solutions for enterprise and multi-party use cases, balancing transparency with control.
A hybrid blockchain combines elements of both public and private blockchains, allowing organizations to control access to specific data while keeping other information public and verifiable. It operates by partitioning its state into private and public layers.
Key mechanisms include:
- Selective transparency: Sensitive business logic and data execute in a private, permissioned environment, while proofs or hashes of the results are anchored to a public chain (like Ethereum or Polygon) for auditability.
- Interoperability bridges: Dedicated oracles or bridges facilitate controlled data and asset transfer between the private and public layers.
- Flexible consensus: The private layer may use efficient consensus like Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT), while leveraging the public chain's security (e.g., Proof-of-Stake) for finality.
Real-world examples include Dragonchain, which allows businesses to keep code and data private while publishing cryptographic proofs to public ledgers, and IBM's Food Trust, which uses a hybrid model for supply chain tracking.
ARCHITECTURAL DECISIONS
Implementation Considerations
Choosing between public and private blockchains requires evaluating technical trade-offs across security, performance, and governance. This section details key factors for implementation.
Public blockchains like Ethereum and Solana use Proof-of-Stake (PoS) or Proof-of-Work (PoW) to achieve decentralized consensus among anonymous participants. These are designed for high security and censorship resistance but are computationally expensive and slower.
Private or permissioned blockchains, such as Hyperledger Fabric, typically use Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) variants like Practical BFT (PBFT) or even simpler Crash Fault Tolerant (CFT) consensus (e.g., Raft). These are faster and more energy-efficient because they operate among a known, vetted set of nodes, but they sacrifice decentralization.
Key trade-off: Choose PoS/PoW for trustless environments requiring maximum security. Choose BFT/CFT for enterprise consortia where speed, finality, and known participants are priorities.
ARCHITECTURE DEEP DIVE
Frequently Asked Questions
Common technical questions about the design, trade-offs, and real-world applications of public and private blockchain architectures.
The core architectural difference is permissioning at the consensus layer. A public blockchain like Ethereum or Bitcoin uses a permissionless consensus mechanism (Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake) where any anonymous node can participate in validating transactions and proposing blocks. Its architecture is designed for decentralization and censorship resistance.
A private blockchain (or permissioned blockchain) uses a permissioned consensus mechanism (e.g., Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance). Only pre-approved, identified entities run validator nodes. This architecture prioritizes throughput, finality speed, and data privacy over decentralization. The network's state is not globally visible.
resource-links
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Resources and Further Reading
Primary documentation, research papers, and technical resources for understanding architectural, governance, and security differences between public and private blockchains.