How Does Proof of Work Inherently Resist Sybil Attacks?

Proof of Work (PoW) inherently resists Sybil attacks by making it economically infeasible to create a large number of fake identities. In a PoW system, influence is proportional to computational power, not the number of identities.

To have a significant impact on the network, an attacker would need to control a significant amount of the network's hash rate, which is very expensive. This makes it difficult for an attacker to create a large number of fake nodes and gain disproportionate influence over the network.

How Can Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) Be Designed to Resist Co-Option by State Actors?
How Is a 51% Attack Easier on a Proof-of-Work (PoW) Coin than a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Coin?
What Is a “Sybil Attack” and How Does It Differ from a 51% Attack?
How Does a Mining pool’S Internal Security Protocol Protect Against’Sybil Attacks’?
How Does Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Differ from Proof-of-Work (PoW)?
How Does a ‘Sybil Attack’ Relate to the Need for a Costly Mechanism like PoW?
Are Proof of Stake Systems More Vulnerable to Sybil Attacks than Proof of Work Systems?
What Are the Key Differences between Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake Consensus Mechanisms regarding Network Security?

Glossar