Lunacid V2.1.4 Here

| Metric | PBFT (Tendermint) | HotStuff | | | -------------------------- | ----------------- | -------- | ------------------- | | Finality Latency (median) | 4.2s | 3.1s | 0.47s | | Throughput (tx/s) | 12,000 | 18,000 | 65,000 | | View Change Overhead | $O(n^2)$ | $O(n)$ | $O(1)$ | | Post-Quantum Safe | No | No | Yes (ELC-512) | | Energy per tx (Joules) | 240 | 210 | 12 |

False positive rate: $0.16%$ (tested on 10,000 nodes simulating Martian network latency). 5. Security Analysis 5.1 Eclipse Resistance via Tidal Locking In v2.1.2, an adversary controlling $0.34n$ nodes could isolate a victim by surrounding them in the peer graph. v2.1.4 enforces Tidal Locking : a node's peer set is deterministically rotated every Tide based on the hash of the previous Singularity block. This makes eclipse attacks computationally equivalent to solving a random Hamiltonian cycle in a Lunar graph ($\textNP-Complete$). 5.2 Long-Range Attack Mitigation Long-range attacks are thwarted via Gravitational Checkpoints . Every 144 Tides (one "Lunar Day"), nodes perform a Hard Sync requiring a zero-knowledge proof of stake history since genesis. The proof is generated by the Mare layer in $O(\log n)$ time. 6. Performance Evaluation We benchmarked LUNACID v2.1.4 against PBFT (Tendermint) and HotStuff on a global AWS deployment (100 nodes, 300ms RTT). LUNACID v2.1.4

$$\Phi(B) = \frac\sum_i=1^k \textWeight(V_i)\textDelay(B) \times \textOrbit(B)$$ | Metric | PBFT (Tendermint) | HotStuff |