Paper detail

An Efficient Permissioned Blockchain with Provable Reputation Mechanism

The design of permissioned blockchains places an access control requirement for members to read, access, and write information over the blockchains. In this paper, we study a hierarchical scenario to include three types of participants: providers, collectors, and governors. To be specific, providers forward transactions, collected from terminals, to collectors; collectors upload received transactions to governors after verifying and labeling them; and governors validate a part of received labeled transactions, pack valid ones into a block, and append a new block on the ledger. Collectors in the hierarchical model play a crucial role in the design: they have connections with both providers and governors, and are responsible for collecting, verifying, and uploading transactions. However, collectors are rational and some of them may behave maliciously (not necessarily for their own benefits). In this paper, we introduce a reputation protocol as a measure of the reliability of collectors in the permissioned blockchain environment. Its objective is to encourage collectors to behave truthfully and, in addition, to reduce the verification cost. The verification cost on provider $p$ is defined as the total number of invalid transactions provided by $p$ and checked by governors. Through theoretical analysis, our protocol with the reputation mechanism has a significant improvement in efficiency. Specifically, the verification loss that governors suffer is proved to be asymptotically $O(\sqrt{T_{total}})$ ($T_{total}$, representing the number of transactions verified by governors and provided by $p$), as long as there exists at least one collector who behaves well. At last, two typical cases where our model can be well applied are also demonstrated.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.