Peerj Cs 09 1705

Blockchain technology and application: an
overview
Shi Dong1, Khushnood Abbas1, Meixi Li1 and Joarder Kamruzzaman2
1
School of Computer Science and Technology, Zhoukou Normal University, Zhoukou, Henan,
China
2
School of Science, Engineering and Information Technology, Federation University Australia,
Ballarat, Australia
ABSTRACT
In recent years, with the rise of digital currency, its underlying technology,
blockchain, has become increasingly well-known. This technology has several key
characteristics, including decentralization, time-stamped data, consensus
mechanism, traceability, programmability, security, and credibility, and block data is
essentially tamper-proof. Due to these characteristics, blockchain can address the
shortcomings of traditional financial institutions. As a result, this emerging
technology has garnered significant attention from financial intermediaries,
technology-based companies, and government agencies. This article offers an
overview of the fundamentals of blockchain technology and its various applications.
The introduction defines blockchain and explains its fundamental working
principles, emphasizing features such as decentralization, immutability, and
transparency. The article then traces the evolution of blockchain, from its inception
in cryptocurrency to its development as a versatile tool with diverse potential
applications. The main body of the article explores fundamentals of block chain
systems, its limitations, various applications, applicability etc. Finally, the study
concludes by discussing the present state of blockchain technology and its future
potential, as well as the challenges that must be surmounted to unlock its full
potential.
Subjects Computer Networks and Communications, Blockchain

Keywords Blockchain technology, IoT, Consensus mechanism, Safety
Submitted 25 May 2023
Accepted 25 October 2023
Published 29 November 2023 INTRODUCTION
Corresponding author Blockchain is a tamper-proof distributed ledger technology. Its distributed yet secure
Shi Dong, [email protected] nature makes it widely adoptable, similar to Internet technology. The fundamental
Academic editor operation of blockchain technology is that it enables a group of people to record
Ayaz Ahmad
transactional records in a shared ledger in such a way that once written and published, no
Additional Information and
one can change them. Blockchain technology has emerged as a transformative innovation
Declarations can be found on
page 39 with the potential to revolutionize various industries (Sapra & Dhaliwal, 2022; Bodkhe
DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 et al., 2020; Mohamed & Al-Jaroodi, 2019; Chen et al., 2022; da Silva et al., 2020; Guo, Sun
Copyright & Lam, 2023; Siedlecka-Lamch & Szymoniak, 2023; Kooshari & Fartash, 2023; Zaghdoud
2023 Dong et al. et al., 2023; Gad et al., 2022). For example, it has found applications in the fashion industry
Distributed under (Guo, Sun & Lam, 2023), Flying Ad-Hoc Networks (Zaghdoud et al., 2023), medical field
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (Siedlecka-Lamch & Szymoniak, 2023; Ramzan et al., 2023), software engineering
(Kooshari & Fartash, 2023), cloud/fog computing (Mullick, Großmann & Krieger, 2023;
How to cite this article Dong S, Abbas K, Li M, Kamruzzaman J. 2023. Blockchain technology and application: an overview. PeerJ
Comput. Sci. 9:e1705 DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705
Habib et al., 2022), museum protection (Bilogrivic & Stublic, 2023), electronic invoicing
(Zhang & Lu, 2022), human resource management (Balon, Kalinowski & Paprocka, 2022),
international trade (Xing, Peng & Liang, 2022), distributed robot control (Kumar et al.,
2022), and more. Its foundational feature, a shared and immutable ledger, has unlocked
new opportunities for secure and transparent transactions involving both tangible and
intangible assets. Businesses leverage blockchain to streamline operations, track valuable
assets, and enhance trust and efficiency in their transactions. This technology’s ability to
provide quick and unalterable information in real-time fosters transparency and trust,
enabling businesses to identify innovative ways to enhance their operations.
Background and motivation

Blockchain technology gained significant public attention with the introduction of
cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, in 2006. In cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, the transfer of digital
assets, often referred to as electronic cash (e-cash), occurs in a distributed manner. Bitcoin
has undergone rapid evolution, drawing upon various disciplines including mathematics,
cryptography, and computer science. Central to its operation is decentralization, which
enables peer-to-peer transactions, coordination, and collaboration facilitated by features
such as timestamps, distributed consensus, data encryption, and economic incentives
within the distributed system (Zhu, Guo & Zhang, 2021). These features offer a compelling
solution to the inefficiencies and security concerns associated with centralized data storage,
making blockchain technology particularly attractive to financial intermediaries and
government agencies (Al-Jaroodi & Mohamed, 2019; Bodkhe et al., 2020; Javaid et al.,
2021). Bitcoin’s success has also paved the way for the development of numerous other
cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum, signifying new possible directions for currency
exchange. The blockchain technology solution for cryptocurrency opening opportunity for
other fields also which we will explore later.
Problem statement
Blockchain technology is currently gaining momentum across various industries, holding
the promise of modernizing our economic system. However, it also faces several significant
challenges, including scalability, energy consumption, interoperability, and regulatory
concerns. Unfortunately, only a limited amount of work has been undertaken in this
direction thus far. In our research, we have extensively explored nearly every aspect of
blockchain, ranging from its fundamental construction to various applications. Our focus
has been on examining the fundamental building blocks of blockchain technology and
shedding light on various security aspects related to blockchain-based systems. The
objective of this work is to provide a comprehensive review of blockchain technologies,
their applications, security and privacy issues, and the research obstacles that lie ahead
(Pieters, Kokkinou & van Kollenburg, 2022).
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: “Survey Methodology” discusses
the survey methodology. “Literature Review” presents the literature review. “Key
Technologies for Blockchain” covers the key technologies required to build a blockchain
system. “Types of Blockchains” presents the type of blockchain. In “Security Measures in
Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 2/50

Blockchain Systems: Un-Derstanding Attack Dynamics”, we shed light on the advantages
and disadvantages of blockchain systems. In “Introduction to Future Research Methods
and Application Areas”, we examine possible future methods and applications of
blockchain systems. In “Limitations of Block Chain Technology”, we discuss the
limitations of blockchain systems. Finally, in “Conclusions”, we conclude the article.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
This study follows the established rules for conducting systematic literature reviews very
carefully. Our research approach involves three essential phases that are meticulously
planned to ensure the completeness and rigor of our investigation: planning, data
collection, and data review.
In the first phase of data collection, we conducted a thorough search using Google
Scholar and the Web of Science to find academic papers related to our study on blockchain
technology. This initial search aimed to include a wide range of literature on the topic.
After this broad search, we took a more focused approach. Specifically, we looked closely at
articles that had received a significant number of citations and directly related to the main
themes of our research. Because the blockchain field is rapidly changing, we went a step
further to ensure the comprehensiveness of our investigation. We expanded our search
beyond academic papers to include insights from relevant websites, authoritative blogs,
and technical reports. These additional sources helped us gain a comprehensive
understanding of the subject matter, incorporating practical experiences and expert
perspectives from those actively involved in blockchain technology from industries also.
Our rigorous methodological approach highlights our dedication to conducting a
thorough, rigorous, and comprehensive review. By incorporating both academic research
and real-world practical insights, we aim to provide a detailed and well-rounded portrayal
of the diverse landscape of blockchain technology, recognizing its dynamic evolution and
its relevance across various domains.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In early 2016, the Central Bank of China stated its intention to actively promote the official
publication of digital currency. As a result, more and more financial research institutions
started to take notice of blockchain technology, the innovative technology behind digital
currencies (Pilkington, 2016). Around the same time, the UK government released a special
report on blockchain technology titled “Distributed Accounting Technology: Beyond
Blockchain” in an effort to vigorously develop the use of blockchain in the government
sector (Hancock & Vaizey, 2016). Mckinsey Company (2016) has reported that blockchain
technology is the core technology most likely to trigger a disruptive revolution, which will
be the fifth wave of disruptive revolution after steam engine, electricity, information, and
Internet technology (Hancock & Vaizey, 2016). In Asia, some Internet giants have also
started researching blockchain technology and its potential applications. For example,
Baidu Finance and Huaneng Trust, and Changan New Life received recognition for the
country’s first domestically-backed blockchain-based project. Jingdong Group has built the
Jingdong Anti-Counterfeit Traceability Platform using blockchain technology. Biggest

internet corporations such as Tencent and Amazon, have developed the Tencent
Blockchain Supply Chain and Amazon Managed Blockchain (AMB), respectively, funding
solutions to help small businesses, microbusinesses, home-based businesses, and
solopreneurs with their funding issues. Alibaba Group has leveraged the decentralized,
tamper-proof, and distributed storage features of blockchain technology to launch several
applications such as “AntChain” and “Trust Made Simple” (Kong, 2021). In some of the
game’s modules, which were released as part of Tencent’s first Augmented Reality (AR)
exploration series of portable gaming consoles in April 2019, and Microsoft Xbox gaming
console used Microsoft Azure Blockchain Service in 2018.
Key technologies for blockchain

Role of cryptography in blockchain technology
Cryptography plays a fundamental role in ensuring the security and integrity of blockchain
technology. It is extensively employed in various aspects of blockchain to guarantee
confidentiality, authenticity, and immutability of data and transactions. When a user
initiates a transaction on the blockchain, cryptography is used to encrypt the transaction
data, allowing only the intended recipient with the matching private key to decrypt and
access the information, thus ensuring confidentiality and security. Digital signatures,
created using cryptographic keys (private and public), are essential in blockchain
transactions, verifying the authenticity of transactions and enabling traceability to the
original sender. Moreover, cryptography is instrumental in consensus mechanisms like
Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS), which secure the network against attacks
and maintain blockchain integrity through cryptographic puzzles and algorithms. The use
of cryptographic hash functions in blockchain generates unique, fixed-length
representations of data (blocks), ensuring the linkage of blocks in the chain and facilitating
detection of tampering or unauthorized alterations.
Secure key management is ensured by cryptography to protect users’ private keys,
granting access to digital assets and transactions, and preventing unauthorized access.
Additionally, cryptographic encryption safeguards sensitive data stored on the blockchain,
such as personal information and business records, ensuring confidentiality even if the
data is publicly accessible. Overall, cryptography serves as the backbone of blockchain
technology, providing essential tools for creating a secure, transparent, and tamper-proof
decentralized system. By instilling trust and confidence among participants, blockchain
technology becomes a reliable solution for various applications, including digital
currencies, supply chain management, identity verification, and many others (Bhushan
et al., 2021a; Gupta, Gupta & Chandavarkar, 2021; Sabry, Kaittan & Majeed, 2019).
Packaging into data blocks

In the blockchain system, data is organized into blocks using a particular hashing
algorithm and data structure, such as the merkle tree or binary hash tree. Each distributed
node in the network takes the transaction data it receives, encodes it, and packages it into
blocks of data. These blocks are then given a timestamp and linked to the longest main
blockchain. This process involves various technical components, including blocks, chain

Block size: 4 bytes, (this block byte size (not
including this field))
Version number: 4 bytes, (marking the block
Blockhead protocol version)
Parent block hash: 32 bytes (block header
hash of the previous block (parent block))
Merkle root: 32 bytes (Merkle root hash of

the transactions recorded in this block)
Block Timestamp: 4 bytes (time of generation of
data this block)
structure Difficulty target: 4 bytes (difficulty target for
generating the workload proof calculation
performed by this block)
Random number: 4 bytes (random number for
workload proof algorithm)
Number of transactions: 1-9 bytes (number of

transactions recorded in this block)
Block
content Transactions: determined by the number of
transactions (all transactions in this block,
recorded using the data structure)
Figure 1 Block data structure. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705/fig-1
structures, hashing algorithms, Merkle trees, and timestamps (Zhu, Guo & Zhang, 2021).
These elements work together to ensure the secure and orderly arrangement of data within
the blockchain system.
Block
The unit of data that can record information about Bitcoin transactions is the block. A
block is made up of two parts: one part is the block header, and the other part is the block
content. This is shown in Fig. 1.
Merkle tree
The Merkle tree plays a crucial role in blockchain technology, serving as a vital data
structure for efficiently summarizing and verifying the existence and integrity of block data
(Mohan, Mohamed Asfak & Gladston, 2020; de Ocáriz Borde, 2022). Its main function is to
enable the identification of all transactions recorded in a block, making it possible to locate
them on each block of the blockchain. To achieve this, the blockchain system utilizes a
binary tree variant of the Merkle tree. This variant is responsible for summarizing and

Block Header(Block Hash)
Prev Hash Nonce
Root Hash
Hash01 Hash23
Hash0 Hash1 Hash2 Hash3
Tx2 Tx2 Tx2 Tx3
Figure 2 Transaction hash concept in Merkle tree. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705/fig-2
representing the transactions in a block, ultimately producing a digital signature for the
entire set of transactions. Figure 2 provides a visual illustration of this concept.
Timestamp
In blockchain technology, nodes with bookkeeping privileges are required to include a
timestamp in the header of the current data block. This timestamp indicates the exact time
when the block was written or added to the blockchain. By incorporating this
timestamping mechanism, the blockchain ensures that blocks on the main chain are
arranged in a chronological order, reflecting the sequential order of transactions.
The inclusion of timestamps enhances the tamper-evident nature of the blockchain.
Any attempt to modify or alter the data in a block would result in a mismatch between the
timestamp and the actual time of the tampering, immediately indicating the presence of
unauthorized changes. This chronological organization and tamper-evident feature
contribute to the overall security and integrity of the blockchain system.
P2P network technology

Since its creation in 2009, the Bitcoin system has shown impressive operational stability,
primarily attributed to its use of peer-to-peer (P2P) network technology. Unlike traditional
client-server models, P2P network architectures provide several advantages, including
enhanced privacy protection, decentralization, robustness, load balancing, and improved
performance (Rajasekaran, Azees & Al-Turjman, 2022). The essence of P2P technology is
rooted in decentralization. Within the context of blockchain, this architecture facilitates

the global transfer of cryptocurrencies without intermediaries or central servers.
Leveraging a distributed network structure, individuals interested in validating blocks can
establish a Bitcoin node (Sharma, 2022). Blockchain serves as a decentralized ledger that
tracks digital assets on a P2P network. This network arrangement involves interconnected
computers, each housing a complete ledger copy. The devices cross-reference their copies
to ensure data accuracy. This diverges from traditional banking models, wherein
transactions are privately stored and exclusively managed by the bank. Based on different
design concepts, emergence times, and network structures, P2P networks can be classified
into three distinct types: first-generation hybrid P2P networks, second-generation
unstructured P2P networks, and third-generation structured P2P networks.
Distributed ledger technology

There is a significant distinction between blockchain technology and traditional databases,
mainly in terms of the fundamental operations they support (Chowdhury et al., 2018;
Koens & Poll, 2018; Mattila, 2016). Traditional databases provide four core operations:
adding, deleting, modifying, and querying data. In contrast, blockchain technology offers
only two operations: adding and querying data. Notably, blockchain lacks the capability to
modify or delete data once it is recorded.
Traditional databases can be categorized into two types: distributed databases and
centralized databases. In distributed databases, high-speed networks connect multiple
geographically dispersed data storage units, creating a logically unified database. This
approach allows for the storage of large amounts of data and facilitates higher concurrent
traffic.
On the other hand, blockchain technology falls under the category of distributed ledger
technology. While it shares some similarities with distributed databases, there are
significant differences in terms of storage mechanisms and data structures. The
immutability of data in blockchain, along with its decentralized nature, ensures a secure
and transparent ledger of transactions.
Asymmetric encryption and digital signature

Asymmetric encryption relies on a matched pair of public and private keys, which exhibit
unique characteristics. Public-private key pairs are created systematically, wherein a key
pair consists of a public key and its corresponding private key. A fundamental stipulation
of this process is that, while the public key is openly accessible to all, the private key
remains non-derivable even when the public key is known. The encrypted with the public
key can only be decrypted using the corresponding private key (Bhushan et al., 2021b).
Similarly, content encrypted with the private key can only be decrypted using the
corresponding public key. To ensure secure message transmission, the digital signature
method is utilized (Shi et al., 2020). The message sender applies a hash operation to the
message digest and subsequently attaches the resulting digital signature at the end of the
message. The message is then encrypted using the private key, and upon receiving the
message, the recipient decrypts it using the public key as shown in Fig. 3. The recipient
subsequently performs the same hash operation on the digest to verify that the message has

SHA256 SHA256
Public key RIPEMD160 Public key Base52 Address
˄65 bytes˅ ˄20 bytes˅ ˄33 characters˅
Private key
˄256 bits˅
Private key
˄50 characters˅
Figure 3 Bitcoin asymmetric encryption mechanism. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705/fig-3
not been tampered with, as evidenced by the consistency of the digital signature (Li, Hu &
Lan, 2020).
Elliptic curve type encryption algorithm

Today, most blockchain researchers opt to utilize the elliptic curve cryptographic
algorithm. This particular encryption method leverages an algorithm from the field of
elliptic curve mathematics: (i) Despite its name, the elliptic curve cryptographic algorithm
does not actually involve an elliptic curve. Rather, its expression bears a resemblance to the
integral formula used to determine the circumference of an ellipse. (ii) elliptic curve
formula uses the following expression-
q ¼ kp (1)
where, k (a positive integer less than p), and p is a fixed point on the elliptic curve and
serves as the starting point for the scalar multiplication, and it is possible to quickly
determine the value of q. However, if q and p are given, it becomes difficult to compute the
value of k. This mathematical challenge is referred to as the discrete logarithm problem of
elliptic curves. By using q as the public key, it can be safely shared with others for
encryption purposes (Umucu, 2022). While keeping k as the private key ensures that only
the authorized person can decrypt the message. The discrete logarithm problem of elliptic
curves makes it challenging for an unauthorized party to obtain the private key k from the
public key q, ensuring a high level of security.
Paxos algorithm
The Paxos algorithm is a widely used algorithm that enables achieving consensus in
blockchain technology (Mingxiao et al., 2017; Charapko, Ailijiang & Demirbas, 2018; Deng
et al., 2022; Burchert & Wattenhofer, 2018), specifically in the presence of node failures

rather than malicious nodes (Byzantine failures). It is designed to solve non-Byzantine
problems and ensure agreement among nodes even in the face of failures. The Paxos
algorithm operates similarly to a parliamentary system, where proposals are presented and
voted on by all members. It consists of two main phases: the preparation phase and the
submission phase. In the preparation phase, voting on the proposal takes place, and in the
submission phase, the final acceptance of the proposal is determined. During the commit
phase, if the proposal receives a majority of affirmative responses from the nodes, the
system sends an acknowledgment message, comparable to a webpage prompting you to
“confirm” before closing. If all nodes confirm the proposal, it will be accepted and
considered agreed upon. However, if the proposal fails to gather sufficient confirmations, a
new proposal must be submitted to replace it, and the process continues until a consensus
is reached among the nodes. This way, the Paxos algorithm ensures fault-tolerant
consensus in distributed systems with node failures.
SHA256 algorithm
Bitcoin uses a double SHA256 hash function to obtain a 256-bit hash from the original
transaction record of any length. This hash function is advantageous due to its fixed length,
timing, single direction, and randomness. Fixed length refers to the output hash values
having the same length, while timing means that the time needed to compute the hash is
virtually the same for different lengths of data. Single direction means that the original
input data cannot be derived from the hash, although theoretically possible, it is practically
impossible. Randomness means that even with similar values entered, the output hash will
be completely different. Moreover, the proof of work used in Bitcoin is also based on the
SHA256 function (Ye et al., 2018).
Consensus mechanism
A consensus algorithm serves as a critical procedure within a blockchain network, enabling
each peer to establish a unified agreement on the distributed ledger’s state. Essentially, it
acts as a protocol facilitating all nodes in the blockchain network to collectively determine
the current data state within the ledger and trust unknown peers in the network. The
blockchain network implements an incentive-based block creation process also known as
“block mining” (Wang et al., 2019b).
The consensus mechanism stands as a foundational technology in the blockchain realm.
It identifies the nodes responsible for maintaining the ledger and ensures the confirmation
and synchronization of transaction information. This consensus process typically involves
two key phases: “master selection” and “bookkeeping,” with each round being further
subdivided into four stages: master selection, block generation, data verification, and
uploading (i.e., bookkeeping) (Castro & Liskov, 1999). Presently, mainstream consensus
mechanisms encompass proof of work, practical Byzantine fault tolerance (dBFT), tangle
(IOTA), proof of stake (PoS), delegated proof of stake (DPoS), Ripple consensus protocol,
proof of weight, proof of elapsed time, proof of history, proof of stake velocity, proof of
importance, proof of reputation, proof of identity, proof of activity, proof of time, proof of
retrievability, proof of capacity, Byzantine fault tolerance (BFT), delayed proof of work,

RAFT, stellar consensus, proof of believability, directed acyclic graphs, Hashgraph, proof
of work (PoW), holochain, proof of existence, SPECTRE, proof of authority, ByteBall,
LibraBFT (Amsden et al., 2020), and more come into play (Lashkari & Musilek, 2021;
Zhang, Wu & Wang, 2020b; Chepurnoy et al., 2017; Sanka et al., 2021; Guru et al., 2023;
Pilkington, 2016; Kaur et al., 2021; Underwood, 2016; Mukhopadhyay et al., 2016; Wang
et al., 2019b; Yao et al., 2021). However, it is worth noting that the ever-evolving landscape
of blockchain technology necessitates vigilance against potential vulnerabilities. Hackers
continuously upgrade their computational capabilities, posing a future security risk to
blockchain systems. These diverse consensus mechanisms showcase the innovation and
adaptability within the blockchain ecosystem, addressing specific use cases and
requirements. Here we are describing some well-known protocols.
Proof of Stake (PoS): PoS is an alternative consensus mechanism where validators are
chosen based on their stake in the network (cryptocurrency holdings). It is more energy-
efficient than PoW and might be more suitable for IoT devices with limited resources.
Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS): DPoS is a variation of PoS where participants vote
for a set of delegates who then validate transactions and create blocks. It offers faster
transaction times and is commonly used in blockchain networks like EOS.
Proof of Work (PoW): The PoW is a crucial and foundational mechanism in
blockchain technology. Its primary role is to achieve consensus and secure the
blockchain network by adding new blocks to the blockchain (Gervais et al., 2016;
Gemeliarana & Sari, 2018; Shi, 2016). The mechanism’s fundamental steps include: (i)
nodes monitor and temporarily store network data records, which are subsequently
verified for their basic legitimacy; (ii) nodes utilize their computational power to test
different random numbers; (iii) after identifying a suitable random number, nodes
generate the corresponding block information by first inserting the block header
information, followed by the data record information; (iv) upon receiving the
instruction, the newly generated block is broadcasted to the network. Once the
remaining nodes pass the verification process, the block is added to the blockchain, and
a node is added to the height of the main chain, increasing its height by one. The proof of
work (PoW) method aims to establish a reward mechanism to incentivize other nodes in
the blockchain network to solve a SHA256 mathematical problem, which is difficult to
solve but easy to verify. The mathematical problem requires that the computed random
number be equal to or less than the target hash value.
Proof of Stake (PoS): PoS is a consensus mechanism used in blockchain networks to
achieve agreement on the state of the blockchain and validate new transactions. In this
model, participants stake their digital currency to become validators. The more coins
they stake, the higher their chances of being chosen to create and validate new blocks
(Saleh, 2021; Li et al., 2017; Gaži, Kiayias & Zindros, 2019; Shifferaw & Lemma, 2021).
To incentivize holding coins and discourage hoarding, the concept of “coin days” is
employed. This means that for each coin owned, one “coin day” is generated every day.
For example, if someone holds 200 coins for 15 days, their total coin days would be
3,000. When a new PoS block is discovered, the individual’s coin days are reset to zero.

As a reward for participating in PoS and staking their coins, certificate holders receive
interest. Every time 365 coin days are cleared, the holder is entitled to receive 0.05 coins
as interest from the associated blocks. For instance, with 3,000 coin days, the interest
earned would amount to 0.41 coins, indicating that the currency held would accrue
interest.
The fundamental idea behind the PoS model is to replace the energy-intensive Proof
of Work system with a more efficient approach. Instead of selecting the node with the
highest computational power, PoS selects validators based on their equity in the
blockchain network. This encourages active participation and ensures that validators
have a vested interest in maintaining the network’s integrity while earning incentives for
their contributions.
Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS): It is a consensus mechanism used in some
blockchain networks to achieve agreement on the state of the blockchain and validate
new transactions. DPoS is a variation of the PoS algorithm but with a different approach
to selecting validators. In a DPoS system, token holders in the blockchain network have
the right to vote for a certain number of delegates or representatives who will be
responsible for validating transactions and creating new blocks. These delegates are
often referred to as “witnesses” or “block producers (Saad & Radzi, 2020)”.
The key features and principles of DPoS include:
1. Voting: Token holders in the network can vote to elect delegates from a pool of
candidates. The number of votes a token holder has is typically proportional to the
number of tokens they hold. The elected delegates then take on the responsibility of
validating transactions and adding blocks to the blockchain.
2. Block production: The elected delegates are responsible for creating new blocks.
They take turns in producing blocks in a round-robin fashion or based on a predefined
schedule.
3. Consensus: Consensus is achieved when a supermajority of elected delegates agree on
the validity of a transaction and its inclusion in the blockchain.
4. Decentralization: Although DPoS relies on a limited number of delegates, it is still
considered decentralized because token holders have the power to vote and change the
delegates if they are dissatisfied with their performance.
5. Efficiency and scalability: DPoS is known for its high transaction throughput and
faster block confirmation times compared to other consensus mechanisms like PoW.
6. DPoS relies on the assumption that elected delegates act in the best interest of the
network since they have a stake in it. To prevent malicious behavior, penalties or
mechanisms like vote slashing can be implemented. DPoS has been adopted by several
blockchain projects, including Steem, BitShares, and EOS. It aims to strike a balance
between decentralization, efficiency, and security, making it suitable for applications
that require high transaction speeds and scalability. However, it also introduces some
degree of centralization due to the limited number of elected delegates, which is a topic
of ongoing debate within the blockchain community.

Table 1 Comparison of blockchain consensus mechanisms.
Consensus Year Type Mining Scalability
Practical byzantine consensus algorithm 1999 Permissioned Round of mining Not scalable
PoW 1999 Permissionless Yes Low
PBFT 1999 Permissioned No Very high
Proof of work 2008 Permissionless Computational power Not scalable
Proof of stake 2011 Permissioned and permissionless Node wealth and staking age Scalable
Ripple 2012 Permissioned No High
PoS 2012 Permissionless Yes High
Raft 2013 Permissioned No Low
Proof of stake velocity 2014 Stake and amount (velocity) Scalable Low
DPoS 2014 Permissionless Yes Very high
Proof of burn 2014 Permissioned and permissionless Coin burning (probabilistic lottery) Scalable
Proof of activity 2014 Permissionless Effectiveness of work by the miner Scalable
Tendermint 2014 Permissioned No Very high
ELASTICO 2016 Permissionless No Low
Implicit consensus 2017 Permissioned No Not scalable
Proof of vote 2017 Consortium Voting mining Very low
DBFT consensus algorithm 2018 Permissioned Random selection of miner Not scalable
Proof of trust (PoT) 2018 Permission-based consortium Probabilistic and voting mining Scalable
LibraBFT 2020 Permissioned Voting mining Scalable
PBFT: The Practical Byzantine Fault-Tolerant algorithm (PBFT) (Castro & Liskov,
1999) is a state machine replication algorithm that models services as state machines.
The algorithm addresses the low-efficiency issues of the original Byzantine Fault-
Tolerant algorithm and reduces the complexity from exponential to polynomial level.
We have compared well-known consensus mechanism algorithms in the Table 1.
Blockchain wallet
A blockchain wallet is a digital wallet that securely stores and manages multiple
cryptocurrencies, allowing users to exchange and transfer funds with utmost security (Dai
et al., 2018; Eyal, 2022). It offers privacy and identity protection and can be accessed via
web devices. The wallet has essential features to facilitate secure and reliable transfers and
exchanges between parties.
A blockchain wallet comes with a private and public key. The public key is like an email
address that can be shared with anyone to receive funds. However, the private key is
confidential, like a password, and should never be shared as it is used to spend the funds. If
the private key is compromised, there is a high risk of losing all cryptocurrency deposits in
the account (Suratkar, Shirole & Bhirud, 2020). The sequence diagram is described in
Fig. 4. The arrows show the flow of communication between these participants. The user
initiates the transaction through the wallet, which broadcasts it to the network. The
network validates the transaction, and then confirms it back to the wallet, which in turn

User Wallet Network
Initiate transaction
broadcast transaction
vali date
Transaction hash
Transaction hash
Confirm transaction
Verify transaction status
Transaction confirmed
Confirmation
User Wallet Network
Figure 4 The sequence diagram of blockchain technology consisting of wallets.

Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705/fig-4
confirms the transaction to the user. When a user initiates a transaction using their
preferred wallet application, the transaction is broadcast to the blockchain network for
processing and validation. The network will then verify the transaction using a consensus
algorithm, ensuring that the transaction is legitimate and that the user has the required
funds to complete it. Once confirmed, the wallet receives notification of the successful
transaction, and the user can then proceed with the next step in their transactional process.
Ultimately, this coordinated effort between the user, wallet, and blockchain network
ensures secure and reliable transfers and exchanges of cryptocurrencies.
Blockchain-based algorithms for IoT security

Contemporary advancements in Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure, exemplified by
entities like smart buildings and smart cities, are confronted by two significant
impediments. Firstly, there exists a notable deficit of trust among the diverse constituents of
the system. Secondly, a susceptibility to single point failure emerges as a vulnerability
capable of inflicting severe disruptions to the entirety of the system’s operation. In response
to these challenges, the decentralized attributes inherent to blockchain technology present a
viable solution. The distributed nature of blockchain engenders heightened system

resilience by obviating the vulnerabilities associated with single-point failures. The
immutability and distributed structure of blockchain confers authenticity upon every
interaction transpiring within the IoT framework. These interactions are chronologically
captured as transactions, serving a dual role by both substantiating legitimate engagements
and preempting dubious activities. Blockchain transactions encapsulate a spectrum of
interactions, encompassing scenarios such as user movements across IoT zones, secure data
transfers among devices and users, user-device engagement logs within a smart urban or
architectural context, inter-organizational collaborations enhancing user service, and
device-to-device interactions. This plethora of interactions is stored as a sequence of
transactions, collectively crafting a coherent narrative of user-device engagement within the
system. The de-centralized essence of blockchain architecture ensures that the IoT system
remains resilient against compromise, thus mitigating the risks associated with single point
failures. The function of blockchain within the context of the Internet of Things (IoT)
entails furnishing a methodical framework for processing and preserving secure data
records via IoT nodes. Blockchain, characterized by its robust security features, is a
technology amenable to public and open utilization. Given the disparate and diverse
landscape of IoT nodes, a technology of this nature is indispensable for ensuring secure
communication amongst these nodes. The transactional aspects inherent to blockchain are
endowed with traceability and accessibility, accessible to authenticated individuals engaging
within the IoT ecosystem. Thus, the attributes inherent to blockchain render it an optimal
selection for fortifying the security paradigm within IoT communication networks (Roman,
Zhou & Lopez, 2013; Agrawal et al., 2018; Alam, 2019). Blockchain employs several
methods to ensure secure communication within the realm of the Internet of Things (IoT).
These methodologies contribute to fortifying the integrity, authenticity, and confidentiality
of IoT communication:
Hashing algorithms
Secure Hash Algorithm 256-bit (SHA-256): This is widely used in Bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies. It provides a high level of security and is resistant to collision attacks.
It ensures data integrity by generating fixed-size hash values for the data, which cannot
be reversed to the original data.
Secure Hash Algorithm 3 (SHA-3): The successor of SHA-256, SHA-3 is part of the
Keccak family of cryptographic hash functions. It was designed to offer enhanced
security and resistance against potential attacks.
Asymmetric cryptography algorithms

Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA): RSA is widely used for secure key exchange and digital
signatures. It provides a secure way for IoT devices to establish trust and communicate
securely over a blockchain network.
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC): ECC offers the same level of security as RSA but
with shorter key lengths, making it more suitable for resource-constrained IoT devices.

Zero-knowledge proofs
zk-SNARKs (Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Argument of Knowledge):
zk-SNARKs allow one party to prove the knowledge of a secret without revealing the
secret itself. This is useful for privacy-preserving transactions and authentication in IoT
scenarios.
Smart contract languages

Solidity: Solidity is the most popular language for writing smart contracts on the
Ethereum blockchain. It is widely used for creating decentralized applications (dApps)
and executing business logic within the blockchain network.
Vyper: Vyper is an alternative to Solidity, with a focus on simplicity and security. It is
also used for writing smart contracts on Ethereum.
Privacy-focused algorithms
Zero-Knowledge Scalable Transparent Arguments of Knowledge (zk-STARKs): zk-
STARKs are an evolution of zk-SNARKs, providing scalability and transparency in zero-
knowledge proofs.
Confidential transactions: These algorithms, like Bulletproofs, ensure transaction
amounts remain confidential, enhancing privacy in blockchain networks.
Interoperability protocols
Atomic swaps: Atomic swaps allow for direct exchange of cryptocurrencies between
different blockchains without the need for a trusted intermediary.
Polkadot: Polkadot is a multi-chain framework that enables cross-chain
communication and interoperability between different blockchains.
Types of blockchains
The blockchains have been classified into three types based on their intended use and
specific requirements: public, private, and consortium (also known as federated)
blockchains. Each type of blockchain network is designed to serve a specific purpose and
address particular issues, and each has its unique set of features and benefits over the others
(Guegan, 2020).
Public blockchain
A public blockchain is a type of blockchain that is open for all participants to read and use
for transactions, and anyone can participate in the process of creating consensus. It
operates without a central register or trusted third party, and the governance of public
channels is based on the “Code is Law” principle that emerged from the open-source
movement and cypherpunk philosophy. In this system, nodes in the network validate the
choices discussed and initiated by developers by deciding whether to integrate the
proposed modifications (Karafiloski & Mishev, 2017).

One of the significant advantages of public blockchain technology is that it is entirely
trustworthy and transparent. The blockchain is a decentralized system that allows users to
directly interact with each other without the involvement of intermediaries. This
eliminates the need for a third party and reduces the chances of fraud or manipulation.
Moreover, blockchain technology offers high-security measures due to its complex
cryptographic algorithms that ensure the integrity of data stored on the blockchain.
However, public blockchain technology also has its demerits. One of the most significant
challenges with blockchain is scalability. As more and more data is added to the
blockchain, the network becomes slower, making it difficult to process transactions
quickly. Additionally, the lack of transaction speed in the blockchain system can be a
drawback, especially in industries where time is of the essence. Another major concern
with blockchain technology is that it consumes a lot of energy, which can be detrimental to
the environment. Therefore, while blockchain technology has numerous benefits, it is
important to consider its drawbacks before implementing it in various industries.
Private blockchain
In contrast to public blockchains, a private blockchain is a more restrictive and
permissioned blockchain that functions within a closed network. It is predominantly
utilized within organizations where only specific members have access to the blockchain
network. This type of blockchain is particularly suited for enterprises and businesses that
seek to utilize blockchain solely for internal purposes. One key difference between public
and private blockchains lies in their accessibility; the former is highly accessible while the
latter is limited to a select group of individuals. Additionally, a private blockchain is more
centralized since a single authority is responsible for maintaining the network. Notable
examples of private blockchains include Corda, Hyperledger Fabric, and Hyperledger
Sawtooth. Private blockchains are known for their higher transaction processing speed and
scalability. They operate within a closed network of selected participants, allowing for
increased processing power and efficiency. Unlike public blockchains, private blockchains
are less decentralized, with a single authority maintaining the network. This centralized
structure allows for higher scalability as there are no limitations to the number of nodes
that can be added to the network. With greater control over the network, private
blockchains can be customized to meet the specific needs of the organization, further
enhancing their scalability. In addition, private blockchains offer a higher transaction per
second (TPS) rate, allowing for a greater volume of transactions to be processed in a
shorter amount of time. Overall, private blockchains are an ideal solution for enterprises
and businesses that require high levels of scalability and transaction processing speed.
Private blockchains, while offering higher transaction speeds and scalability, have some
notable demerits. The first of these is that private blockchains are less secure compared to
public blockchains. This is because the private blockchain operates within a closed network
and is more centralized than public blockchains. As a result, it is more vulnerable to attacks
by hackers and other malicious actors. Another demerit is that private blockchains are less
decentralized compared to public blockchains. Achieving trust in a private blockchain can
be difficult as a result. As such, private blockchains are not suitable for use cases that

require a high level of security and trust. Despite these demerits, private blockchains
remain a valuable tool for businesses and organizations that require a closed blockchain
network for internal use cases.
Consortium or federated blockchain

Consortium blockchain, also known as federated blockchain, is ideal for organizations that
require both public and private blockchains (Sheth & Dattani, 2019). In this type, multiple
organizations are involved and responsible for providing access to specific nodes for
reading, writing, and auditing the blockchain. As there is no single authority governing the
control, it is partially decentralized. It falls between fully public (fully decentralized) and
private (fully centralized) blockchain networks.
Consortium blockchain, has been gaining popularity among organizations due to its
unique benefits. One of the most significant advantages is that it is best suited for
collaboration between organizations. Consortium blockchain is designed to allow multiple
organizations to work together on a shared blockchain network while maintaining their
privacy and confidentiality. Another benefit is its scalability and high level of security,
which makes it a better choice over public blockchains. Furthermore, consortium
blockchains are much more efficient than public blockchains, making them ideal for use
cases that require high transaction speeds. Additionally, organizations using consortium
blockchains can have better customizability and control over resources, enabling them to
tailor the blockchain to their specific needs. All of these advantages make consortium
blockchains an excellent choice for organizations looking to collaborate and share
information in a secure, efficient, and customizable manner.
While Consortium blockchains offer advantages such as scalability, security, and
customizability, there are also some drawbacks to consider. One disadvantage is that
consortium blockchains may be less transparent than other types of blockchains. This is
because access to the blockchain network is restricted to selected participants, and the
information contained in the blockchain may not be visible to everyone. Another
drawback is that consortium blockchains may be less anonymous than other blockchains,
as the participants in the network are pre-selected and known to each other. Therefore,
consortium blockchains may not be the best option for use cases where anonymity is a
critical requirement.
Table 2 presents a summary of the functioning of three distinct types: public, private,
and consortium. Public blockchains are open to all and permissionless, allowing for
decentralized governance and consensus mechanisms such as proof of work and proof of
stake. While they offer high security, they have limited scalability and are generally slower
in terms of efficiency. Private blockchains, on the other hand, are restricted to authorized
users and offer better efficiency and scalability, thanks to their permissioned governance
and consensus mechanisms. Consortium blockchains offer shared control among
authorized participants, allowing for collaborative projects between organizations. They
also offer better efficiency and scalability than public blockchains, while still maintaining
high security. The use cases for each type of blockchain include cryptocurrency and

Table 2 Classification of blockchain technology based on their applications.
Feature Public blockchain Private blockchain Consortium blockchain
Access Open to all Restricted to authorized users Restricted to authorized participants
Permission Permissionless Permissioned Permissioned
Governance Decentralized Centralized Shared control
Consensus Proof of work, proof of stake Various consensus mechanisms Various consensus mechanisms
Scalability Limited Better than public Better than public
Security High High High
Efficiency Slow Fast Fast
Use cases Cryptocurrency, decentralized apps Internal enterprise use Collaborative projects between organizations
decentralized apps for public blockchains, internal enterprise use for private blockchains,
and collaborative projects between organizations for consortium blockchains.
SECURITY MEASURES IN BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEMS:

UNDERSTANDING ATTACK DYNAMICS
Blockchain security encompasses strategies, protocols, and mechanisms that protect
against unauthorized access, data breaches, and malicious actions. Key focus areas include
integrity, confidentiality, and network availability. Security measures counter various
attacks, ensuring the trustworthiness of blockchain data. We have also summarized in
Table 3.
Security
Blockchain technology’s remarkable security stems from its capability to safeguard
information interactions from human intervention through decentralized operations,
consensus mechanisms, and immutability. Blockchain operates on a decentralized network
of nodes, ensuring no single entity has full control over the data. Consensus mechanisms
require agreement among participants for data validity, preventing malicious intervention.
Once data is recorded on the blockchain, it becomes tamper-proof and immutable due to
cryptographic links. Participants’ private keys secure their data, authorizing transactions
and safeguarding against unauthorized access. Blockchain’s transparency enables auditing
and immediate detection of unauthorized intervention, enhancing trust and data integrity
(Sun, Zhang & Han, 2023). Overall, blockchain’s inherent features ensure secure and
trustworthy information interactions. Participants in blockchain interactions play a vital
role in ensuring effective information security by safeguarding their private keys (Alangot
et al., 2020). To delve deeper into its security aspects, this section will provide a concise
explanation of various attack types and the tactics employed by both honest miners and
attackers within the security assessment model (Zeng et al., 2019). Understanding these
intricacies is crucial for comprehending the robust security framework of blockchain
technology.

Table 3 Advantage and disadvantage of blockchain.
Advantages Disadvantages
Security: enhanced data protection through cryptographic techniques and Scalability: potential performance issues due to distributed nature.
decentralization.
Transparency: Distributed ledger ensures all participants have access to the Energy consumption: proof-of-work consensus mechanisms can be
same information. energy-intensive.
Decentralization: no central authority, reducing the risk of single point of Lack of regulation: regulatory uncertainties and potential misuse.
failure.
Immutability: tamper-resistant data records once recorded on the Irreversibility of transactions: difficult to undo incorrect transactions or
blockchain. fraud.
Fast and low-cost transactions: peer-to-peer transactions without Complexity and learning curve: technical expertise required for
intermediaries. understanding.
Traceability and audibility: timestamped and transparent transaction history. Data storage: expensive and impractical for large data storage.
Smart contracts: automated self-executing contracts with predefined Limited throughput: longer transaction processing time in some
conditions. blockchains.
Enhanced privacy: pseudonymity for added privacy. Lack of governance mechanisms: slow decision-making and consensus
challenges.
Global accessibility: internet-based accessibility for anyone with an internet Security vulnerabilities: potential vulnerabilities in implementation.
connection.
Reduced fraud: tamper-resistant nature reduces fraudulent activities. Interoperability challenges: difficulty in transferring data between
different blockchains.
Various kinds of attacks

In the realm of blockchain technology, an attack pertains to any action aimed at
undermining the integrity or safety of the blockchain network. Diverse kinds of attacks are
possible, including but not limited to 51% attack, Sybil attack, DDoS attack, and replay
attack, among others. Such attacks may be carried out by cybercriminals or malicious
parties seeking to take advantage of the blockchain network’s weaknesses to access
unauthorized information, steal digital assets, or cause network disruptions. To forestall
attacks on the blockchain network, a range of security measures are implemented,
including consensus mechanisms, cryptographic protocols, and network monitoring tools.
It is imperative for blockchain developers and users to be cognizant of the potential
security risks and take necessary measures to ensure the blockchain network’s safety and
security. Here we are describing few attacks as described by researchers (Yaga et al., 2018;
Malik et al., 2019) follows:
51% attack
One of the most widely recognized types of attack in the blockchain ecosystem is the 51%
attack. In this attack, the attacker controls more than 51% of the computing resources in
the entire blockchain network, enabling them to prevent the confirmation of a new
transaction and interrupt the user’s transaction process. The attacker can quickly confirm
false transaction information and create a longer blockchain with that information
appearing more frequently. The greater the number of computing resources under the
attacker’s control, the easier it is to execute the attack. The 51% attack can lead to the

double payment problem by altering previously confirmed transaction information.
Nakamoto (2008) presented the Bitcoin principle and assessed the probability of successful
attacks under various attack forces. In this context, honest chains are compared to attack
chains and are akin to random walk processes, as described by a binomial distribution. The
probability that an honest chain can be caught up by an attacking chain is shown in Eq. (2).

1; p q
qz ¼ (2)
ðq=pÞz ; p . q
where p is the probability that the next block will be found by an honest miner, q is the
probability that the next block will be found by the attacker, and q is the probability that
the current block transaction can be changed by the attacker. From a probabilistic
standpoint, if the honest miner cannot match the attacker’s rate of computing resources,
the attacker can manipulate the transaction content. In fact, the likelihood of an attack is
determined by several factors, including the difficulty of the proof-of-work (PoW)
algorithm, the variations in computing resources in the network, and the synchronization
of transaction information between miners.
Double-spending
In the realm of blockchain technology, a double spending attack is a grave threat that arises
from the ability of a user to spend a digital asset, such as cryptocurrency, more than once.
This exploit is based on the inherent replicability of a digital asset, enabling it to be
simultaneously used in multiple transactions. To perform this attack, the attacker initiates
a transaction and rapidly creates another transaction using the same digital asset but with a
higher transaction cost. Subsequently, the attacker attempts to get the second transaction
confirmed by the network faster than the first one, leading to the confirmation and
addition of the second transaction to the blockchain, while the first transaction is
discarded. The outcome of this malicious act is that the attacker is able to spend the same
digital asset twice, resulting in financial losses for the victims of the attack. To mitigate the
threat of double spending attacks, blockchain networks use consensus mechanisms and
validation processes that verify each transaction’s uniqueness and ensure that digital assets
can only be spent once (Malik et al., 2019).
Cracking of the cryptographic

The term “cryptographic cracking” pertains to the act of bypassing or breaking the security
measures implemented by cryptographic algorithms. Cryptography is a technique
employed to safeguard digital data by converting it into an indecipherable format using
encryption methods. Breaking a cryptographic algorithm involves identifying weaknesses
or loopholes in the encryption process and exploiting them to gain entry to the encrypted
information. This could result in unauthorized access to sensitive data, such as personal
data or financial records, leading to severe security breaches. To prevent cryptographic
cracking, developers employ robust cryptographic algorithms and encryption techniques
that are difficult to compromise, and regularly update and enhance their security measures
to stay ahead of potential attacks. With the utilization of cryptographic techniques in

blockchain to secure data, it is currently nearly impossible to crack cryptographic
algorithms with the aid of CC attacks (Moubarak, Filiol & Chamoun, 2018).
Denial of Service (DoS) attack

Denial of Service (DoS) attacks can have a serious impact on the normal functioning of a
blockchain network by overwhelming it with a flood of traffic or requests. This type of
attack can be carried out through various means, including transaction flooding,
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, and resource depletion. To protect
blockchain networks from such attacks, security protocols such as firewalls, load balancers,
and anti-DDoS software can be implemented. Additionally, it is important to limit the
number of transactions that can be processed per second. Some blockchains have
implemented consensus mechanisms, such as Proof of Stake (PoS) and Proof of Authority
(PoA), to make it more difficult for attackers to overwhelm the network (Zhong & Guo,
2021; Mirkin et al., 2020). There are different types of DoS attacks in blockchain
technology, including:
Transaction flooding: An attacker sends a large number of transactions to the network,
overloading the nodes and causing delays in transaction processing.
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack: This type of attack involves multiple
attackers targeting the same network with a large volume of traffic, making it difficult for
the network to function properly.
Resource depletion: An attacker consumes a large amount of resources, such as storage
space or bandwidth, which can cause the nodes to crash or slow down (Yatsykovska et al.,
2011).
Sybil attack
Sybil attacks in blockchain technology refer to the act of an attacker creating multiple fake
identities or nodes to gain control over the network. This attack can have severe
consequences, including the ability to manipulate transactions, prevent certain
transactions from being processed, change the blockchain’s history, overwhelm the
network with fake transactions or requests, and even perform double-spending attacks. To
prevent Sybil attacks, blockchain networks can implement various measures, including
Proof of Work (PoW), Proof of Stake (PoS), and identity verification. These measures
make it more difficult for an attacker to create multiple fake identities and gain control
over the network. Overall, Sybil attacks are a serious threat to blockchain networks, and it
is important to implement appropriate security measures to prevent them. The choice of
consensus mechanism and other security measures should be carefully considered to
protect against such attacks (Platt & McBurney, 2021; Zhong & Guo, 2021).
WannaCry ransomwarecrypto-worm attack

The WannaCry ransomware attack occurred in May 2017 and targeted computers running
Microsoft Windows operating systems. It aimed to encrypt files on infected computers and
demand payment in Bitcoin for the decryption key. This attack affected over 230,000
computers in more than 150 countries and caused significant disruption, particularly in
the healthcare sector (Whittaker, 2019).

Petya attack
The Petya ransomware attack, like the WannaCry attack, specifically targeted computer
systems using Microsoft Windows as their operating system. The aim of the attack was to
infect the master boot registry and encrypt the hard drive’s file system, preventing the
system from booting into Windows. Similar to WannaCry, this attack demanded a ransom
payment in Bitcoin for the decryption key (Singh & Singh, 2016).
Transaction malleability attack

A transaction malleability attack is a type of attack where an attacker can manipulate a
transaction ID, tricking the user into thinking that a transaction was not completed and
prompting the user to repeat the transaction with additional payments. This can result in
the user unknowingly paying twice for the same transaction. Essentially, the attacker plays
a game with the user, forcing them to act in a particular way that benefits the attacker. This
attack is typically accomplished through hacking the transaction ID (Decker &
Wattenhofer, 2014).
Timejacking
A timejacking attack in blockchain technology is a sophisticated type of attack that
specifically targets the timestamp of the blockchain. In this type of attack, the attacker
manipulates the time counter of a node to trick it into using an alternative or fake
blockchain. By doing so, the attacker can create confusion and potentially manipulate the
blockchain’s history, leading to disastrous consequences (Moubarak, Filiol & Chamoun,
2018). This type of attack can be particularly dangerous in proof-of-work blockchain
systems where the validity of a block is determined by its timestamp. As a result, it is
essential to prevent timejacking attacks. Some blockchain systems have mechanisms in
place, such as checkpointing, which involves pre-determined checkpoints that nodes can
use to verify the blockchain’s history and detect any malicious activity. Furthermore,
implementing secure time synchronization protocols can also help prevent timejacking
attacks and ensure that all nodes have synchronized and accurate time counters.
Routing partition attack

A routing partition attack in blockchain technology is a type of attack where the attacker
captures and modifies data or transactions between nodes before they are transmitted to
other peers in the network. The attacker achieves this by breaking the entire network into
small groups of nodes that are unwilling to communicate with each other, ensuring that
the attacker’s malicious activity remains undetected. This type of attack can have serious
consequences as it can allow the attacker to manipulate the blockchain’s history and
potentially steal cryptocurrency. To prevent routing partition attacks, blockchain systems
can implement measures such as multi-path routing, where transactions are transmitted
through multiple paths to ensure their integrity and prevent interception by attackers.
Additionally, implementing secure communication protocols between nodes and regularly
monitoring the network for any signs of suspicious activity can also help prevent routing
partition attacks (Singh & Singh, 2016).

Delay/jellyfish attack
A delay attack, also known as a jellyfish attack, guaranteed time slot (GTS) attack, or
timing attack, is a type of attack in blockchain technology that aims to disrupt the network
by causing delays in the transmission of data packets. The attacker achieves this by
propagating the data packets through devices, which results in unnecessary delays and can
prevent the blockchain from functioning properly (Zhong & Guo, 2021). This type of
attack can be particularly dangerous in real-time blockchain systems, where timing is
critical to ensure the proper functioning of the network. To prevent delay attacks, some
blockchain systems use mechanisms such as priority scheduling, which prioritizes the
transmission of data packets based on their importance, or bandwidth reservation, which
allocates a guaranteed amount of bandwidth for critical data packets. Additionally,
implementing secure time synchronization protocols can also help prevent delay attacks.
Eclipse attack
This type of attack is known as an IP address spoofing attack in blockchain technology. In
this attack, the attacker gains control of a large set of IP addresses, often through the use of
a distributed botnet. When the victim restarts its system or blockchain, the connection is
reset, and the attacker-controlled IP addresses are able to intercept the data or transactions
that are sent. By spoofing the IP address of the victim, the attacker can make it appear as
though the data or transactions are coming from a trusted source, potentially causing
significant damage to the blockchain system. To prevent IP address spoofing attacks, some
blockchain systems use techniques such as packet filtering and access control lists to verify
the authenticity of incoming data packets. Additionally, implementing secure
communication protocols such as Transport Layer Security (TLS) can also help prevent IP
address spoofing attacks (Singh & Singh, 2016).
Phishing
Phishing represents a form of cryptocurrency scam where perpetrators deceive victims into
divulging their private keys or personal details. The attacker often adopts a false identity,
pretending to be a genuine individual or entity to establish trust with the victim. Once the
victim falls prey to the scheme, the attacker exploits the obtained information to pilfer their
cryptocurrency funds. Phishing starts with a mass email or message from the attacker,
appearing legitimate, with a link to a fake website resembling the real one. When victims
input their login info on the fake site, the attacker gains access to their account. In 2022,
“Malicious browser bookmarks,” “Zero dollar purchase,” “Trojan horse currency theft,”
“Blank Check”, and “Same ending number transfer scam” emerged as notable examples of
phishing attacks (Katte, 2023). Spear phishing attack, Whaling attack, Clone phishing
attack, Pharming attack, Evil twin attack, Voice phishing attack, SMS phishing attack, and
so on are some well known phishing attacks in blockchain (Katte, 2022).
Vulnerable signatures
In blockchain technology, the vulnerable signatures attack is a specific type of security
vulnerability that targets the signature mechanism used for authentication and verification
of transactions. The attacker intercepts the digital signature, replicates it, and uses it to

target multiple victims simultaneously. This leads to unauthorized access, data theft, and
other malicious activities. To mitigate the risk of vulnerable signature attacks, blockchain
systems use secure signature algorithms and cryptographic protocols that are resistant to
forgery and tampering. Moreover, frequent security audits and updates can help detect and
address vulnerabilities in the signature mechanism, ensuring the overall integrity and
security of the blockchain system.
Dictionary attacks
The dictionary attack constitutes a form of brute-force attack utilized to illicitly access
confidential information or systems, including passwords, hashes, digital signatures, and
encryption algorithms. In this attack strategy, the assailant adopts a hit-and-trial
methodology, commencing with a repository of commonly employed passwords and
personal details, such as names and dates of birth. Subsequently, the attacker meticulously
endeavors each entry from the compiled list until the correct password or sensitive
information is successfully identified. The objective of this attack is to exploit the
vulnerabilities of weakly guarded passwords and authentication mechanisms, thereby
gaining unauthorized entry to the targeted system or compromising the security of
cryptographic elements (Tosh et al., 2017; Houy, Schmid & Bartel, 2024). It is imperative to
be aware of the dictionary attack’s modus operandi, as it underscores the significance of
employing robust security measures to safeguard against such malicious endeavors. In the
context of blockchain-based systems, the term “dictionary attack” is not commonly used as
it would be in the context of traditional password-based systems. Blockchain systems
typically rely on cryptographic keys and signatures, and brute-force attacks like dictionary
attacks are not feasible due to the extremely high computational effort required to break
the cryptographic algorithms. Instead, in the context of blockchain security, the focus is on
protecting private keys, preventing unauthorized access to wallets or accounts, and
securing the consensus mechanism. Threats in blockchain-based systems are more likely to
involve attacks on the underlying protocols, vulnerabilities in smart contracts, or social
engineering techniques to trick users into revealing their private keys.
Flawed key generation

The flawed key generation attack is a type of attack that aims to hack private keys used for
authentication and verification in a system. This attack takes advantage of the user’s
negligence or lack of knowledge, as they fail to update the contents of the keys in a safe and
secure manner. As a result, the keys become vulnerable to attacks, which can lead to
unauthorized access, data theft, and other malicious activities. To prevent flawed key
generation attacks, users should regularly update and secure their private keys using strong
encryption and authentication methods, and follow best practices for key management and
storage.
Attacks on hot block

An attack on the hot block in blockchain technology refers to a security breach that targets
the storage of private keys used in cryptographic techniques. Hot block refers to the storage
of private keys in an application that is connected to the internet, making it vulnerable to

attacks. Attackers can exploit vulnerabilities in the application to gain unauthorized access
to the private keys and use them to perform various malicious activities, such as stealing
funds or manipulating transactions (Moubarak, Filiol & Chamoun, 2018).
(i) Definition of attack strategy: Due to its decentralized nature, the blockchain ensures
the anonymity of its users. However, users are unaware of whether the blocks contain
incorrect transaction information. In contrast, attackers have the capability to access
information about the state of the block. The attacker can selectively join a newly created
block that contains fraudulent transaction information behind a block that aligns with
their interests. The selection strategy employed by the attacker can be defined as follows:
8 P Pn
>
> child ðVi Þ; Vi 1
< max
Vi 2Uattack i¼1
R P P (3)
>
>
n
: max child ðVi Þ; Vi ¼ 0
Vi 2Uall i¼1
R, denotes the current linked block in the blockchain that the attacker selects, with each
block representing a node in the blockchain. The “child()” function is utilized to determine
whether the node has any children. In the presence of an attack block within the
blockchain, the attacker connects the new block to the longest chain after the attack block.
If no attack block exists, the attacker selects the relatively longest branch to connect the
new block.
(ii) Honest miner strategy definition: For an honest miner, the type of block remains
unknown. In a blockchain, the system only recognizes transaction information in the block
with the longest chain. At the probability level, honest miners can connect newly generated
nodes to any block, but they will ultimately choose the longest leaf node. If multiple leaf
nodes belong to the same chain length, the attacker will randomly connect to one of the
leaf nodes with equal probability. As the node depth decreases by one layer, the probability
of a node being selected will decrease by half. The sum of the probabilities of all selected
nodes in Eq. (4) equals one. Equation (5) is utilized to determine the relationship between
the probability of selecting a node and the level of the tree in which it is located.
X
n X
m
ð1=2ÞðLiÞ p ¼ 1 (4)
i¼1 j¼1
pi j ¼ ð1=2ÞðLiÞ p (5)
where, L represents the length of the entire blockchain, and the probability of selecting a
leaf node as the longest chain is denoted by p, which is determined by the current state of
the blockchain. In practical operating environments, the probability of an honest miner
selecting a node before reaching a leaf node is relatively low (Zeng et al., 2019). Honest
attackers adopt a more sophisticated strategy compared to other attackers, as they lack
knowledge of the state of each block. As the proximity to the root node increases, the
probability of a node being selected decreases.

Transparency
The characteristics of distributed bookkeeping, complete replication, and traceability make
it possible to track and query all interactions in blockchain. This leads to increased
transparency of information interaction. However, despite its potential advantages,
blockchain technology is a complex system that involves many disciplines such as
cryptography, artificial intelligence, and computational mathematics (Garay, Kiayias &
Leonardos, 2015). Currently, there is a lack of information talent in some cross-cutting
areas of cutting-edge technology. Furthermore, the large-scale commercial application of
blockchain is hindered by a series of limitations such as the energy-consuming consensus
mechanism for proof-of-work, limited block capacity, and long confirmation time.
Additionally, privacy disclosure caused by data transparency and seamless connection with
already existing systems, as well as legal and regulatory issues, require ongoing research
and resolution (Cui, 2022).
Blockchain volume issues

In the blockchain system, each network node retains all the data records on the blockchain.
However, as the blockchain grows rapidly, the amount of data stored in each node
increases, resulting in a heavier computational & storage burden. For a new user to
participate in reviewing and tracking specific transactions in the blockchain network, they
must first spend a certain amount of time and storage space to load all the block records on
the blockchain. In the case of the Bitcoin blockchain, the complete data volume by 2019
exceeds 70 GB, and it can take more than 3 days for a new user to synchronize the data
using the core Bitcoin client after joining the Bitcoin network (Liu & Zou, 2019).
According to a web blog the data volume by 2023 has already crossed 500 GB (de Best,
2023).
INTRODUCTION TO FUTURE RESEARCH METHODS AND

APPLICATION AREAS
The development and application of new information technology are accelerating as the
development of blockchain accelerates in terms of policy, technology, and the environment
in which it is applied. Countries are making unprecedented efforts to gain a technological
advantage in the frontier areas of the future. The competition among nations is becoming
more complex and intense. Blockchain technology, which vigorously promotes economic
and industrial restructuring, can be a critical turning point for developing countries to
achieve leapfrog progress and occupy an unshakable position in the international division
of labor. Financial research institutions are paying more attention to the technology based
on blockchain “distributed bookkeeping,” with its programmable, distributed,
chronological, encrypted, and tamper-proof technology (Huckle et al., 2016).
Characteristics of beneficial systems

Systems that can benefit from blockchain usually have many participants who do not fully
trust each other but need to work together transparently and securely. They involve
frequent transactions or data transfers, and they may require unique digital identifiers,

decentralized naming services, and secure ownership systems. These systems may also
want to reduce manual efforts in solving problems and disputes, and they need to allow
real-time monitoring by regulators. Having a complete record of all transactions and assets
is also essential.
Suitable applications for blockchain technology

Blockchain is great for systems that need secure, transparent, and decentralized ways of
handling transactions or data. For example, it can be helpful in supply chain management
(Ahmed, 2022; Nethravathi et al., 2022), financial systems, healthcare data management,
digital identity systems, voting, and real estate transactions (Levy, 2022; Zheng et al., 2018b;
Dai, Zheng & Zhang, 2019). There are plethora of blockchain applications in our daily lives
we have mentioned here a few as follows.
Agricultural quality and safety traceability system

The application of blockchain technology can record all production and distribution data,
enabling consumers to track the production and transportation records of agricultural
products throughout the process. The primary technical features of blockchain, including
distributed storage, decentralized management, shared maintenance, consensus trust, and
reliable database, can be utilized to provide solutions to the quality problems of agricultural
products (Hua et al., 2018; Srivastava, Zhang & Eachempati, 2023).
Education
In October 2016, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published a
“White Paper on the Development of Blockchain Technology and Applications,” which
highlighted that the transparency and immutability of data in the blockchain system can be
utilized for student credit management, graduate employment, academic research,
industry-university cooperation, and qualification certification. This is of great significance
for promoting the healthy development of education and employment (Budiharso &
Tarman, 2020). The development of a decentralized education system using blockchain
technology can help break the monopoly of education or government agencies on the right
to education. It can create a comprehensive education system in which all parties can
participate and coordinate construction. In the future, not only schools, training units, and
other educational institutions approved by government departments with qualifications to
provide educational services but also more institutions and even individuals can assume
the role of professional educational service providers. Moreover, the open-source nature,
transparency, and tamper-proof of blockchain can guarantee the authenticity and
credibility of the educational process and results (Terzi et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2022).
The convergence of IoT and blockchain

The Internet of Things (IoT) is an extension of the internet that connects various devices
and objects, enabled by computer network technology and employing smart chips, RF
devices, and communication modules for information sharing and automated
identification of goods. It represents the latest wave in the information industry following
the advent of computers, mobile communication networks, and the internet. IoT systems

collect and transmit information about objects wirelessly, creating a vast data analysis
system for use in various fields, including intelligent transportation, manufacturing, power
grids, and homes. Despite the various application scenarios of IoT, some problems must be
addressed before the technology can mature, such as the challenges associated with
maintenance costs, cloud services, and vulnerable devices susceptible to attacks that cause
data loss and high maintenance costs.
To overcome these challenges, blockchain technology can help facilitate the large-scale
commercialization of IoT. Blockchain can replace the role of a central server by involving
multiple nodes in verifying and recording transactions across the network in a distributed
ledger. The blockchain consensus mechanism allows all network nodes to be verified, and
the use of asymmetric encryption technology and distributed data storage significantly
reduces the risk of hacker attacks. By combining the two technologies, practical problems
in the physical world can be effectively solved. Furthermore, blockchain technology can
provide protection for information security and other issues related to the Internet of
Things.
Energy
The energy industry is undergoing a shift towards a clean and distributed approach in
response to the energy revolution and environmental protection movement, resulting in a
new energy structure with complementary energy flows. The bottom-up distribution of the
energy system will effectively complement the traditional energy system. In this process,
blockchain technology is likely to become an important means to realize the infrastructure
of the Internet of Energy (IoE). By combining distributed trading systems and clean energy
in the energy industry, blockchain can popularize these two trends and promote their
widespread use. Blockchain can improve the efficiency of energy production, enhance
monitoring accuracy, reduce management costs, and secure the wholesale energy trading
market. It can also reduce communication costs, promote the development of clean energy,
provide timely payment and settlement systems for retail energy trading markets, increase
investment and financing channels, and reduce energy investment and financing risks.
These measures can increase participation, provide liquidity for energy saving and
emission reduction in the energy sector, and help achieve the goal of stabilizing climate
change. One of the most promising applications of blockchain in energy management is
energy trading. By using blockchain, energy producers and consumers can trade energy
directly with each other, without the need for intermediaries, thus reducing transaction
costs and increasing the efficiency of the energy market (Münsing, Mather & Moura,
2017). Blockchain can also improve grid security by providing a tamper-proof and
transparent platform for recording energy transactions and ensuring the integrity of
energy data. This can help prevent cyber attacks and ensure the reliability of the energy
grid (Bergquist et al., 2017). Furthermore, blockchain technology can be used for electricity
market control, enabling more efficient management of energy resources and reducing
waste. By automating the process of matching supply and demand and providing real-time
data on energy production and consumption, blockchain can help balance the energy grid

and reduce the need for traditional energy providers (Lundqvist, de Blanche & Andersson,
2017).
Digital identity
With the rapid development of the Internet, digital identity is becoming increasingly
prevalent in various industries. Generally, digital identity enables the association of a
person’s stored computer information with their societal identity. Broadly speaking, a
digital identity is used to identify an individual’s presence in an Internet scenario and is a
combination of relevant characteristics. Digital identity can represent physical information
about an external agent, such as an individual, a business, or a government, through a
computer system. Digital identity can create a better and more trustworthy environment
for the Internet and is a fundamental basis for the digitization of financial transactions
worldwide. Blockchain technology can be a viable solution to some of the issues related to
digital identity, such as privacy concerns and data sovereignty. Blockchain can prevent the
use of false information through unilateral use, such as phone numbers or address
information, which helps avoid identity theft and eliminates the risk of inconsistent
information resulting from the use of personal digital identities in various contexts.
Moreover, blockchain technology uses asymmetric cryptography in the verification phase,
verifying the identity of the requester by comparing the hash values of digital identities
without the original data, thus eliminating the risk of personal privacy leakage.
IoT
The blockchain technology has several promising applications in the IoT domain. It can
facilitate secure and decentralized data sharing among IoT devices without intermediaries,
provide a secure identity and authentication mechanism, enable tracking and tracing of
products in the supply chain, automate and enforce contracts between IoT devices using
smart contracts, and facilitate peer-to-peer energy trading. As research and development
in this area continues, it is likely that additional use cases for blockchain in IoT will emerge,
making it an important technology for enabling secure and autonomous IoT networks. IoT
applications need trust mechanisms that ensure the integrity of the collected data and the
associated interactions as well as their transparency, that blockchain can provide (Sicari
et al., 2015). The research community puts a lot of interest in the integration of blockchain
into different aspects of IoT—decentralization (Veena et al., 2015), security (Khan & Salah,
2018), anonymity (Christidis & Devetsikiotis, 2016), identity (Gan, 2017), and device
management (Samaniego & Deters, 2016).
Finance
The potential of blockchain technology in the finance sector is high and widely recognized
(Peters & Panayi, 2016). Research efforts are focused on enhancing transaction processing
speed and performance (Peters & Panayi, 2016), as well as strengthening security and data
privacy (Singh & Singh, 2016). Furthermore, blockchain is being explored for its ability to
automate financial contracts (Egelund-Müller et al., 2017) and support corporate finance
(Momtaz, Rennertseder & Schröder, 2019), among other applications.

Healthcare
Blockchain technology has numerous applications in the healthcare sector, making it a
promising technology for revolutionizing the industry (Ramzan et al., 2023; Gupta et al.,
2022). One of the primary applications of blockchain in healthcare is electronic medical
records (EMRs) management. By leveraging blockchain’s decentralized and secure nature,
EMRs can be shared securely and efficiently among healthcare providers, improving
patient outcomes and reducing costs (Gordon & Catalini, 2018). Another promising
application of blockchain technology in healthcare is biomedical research. Blockchain can
be used to facilitate secure and transparent sharing of research data among researchers and
institutions, ultimately accelerating the pace of medical discoveries (Benchoufi, Porcher &
Ravaud, 2017). Blockchain can also be used for drug supply chain management, which is
critical for ensuring the authenticity and safety of pharmaceuticals. By recording every step
in the supply chain on a blockchain, stakeholders can track the movement of drugs from
manufacturers to patients, reducing the risk of counterfeit or contaminated drugs (Tseng
et al., 2018). Furthermore, blockchain technology can streamline insurance claim
processing, allowing for faster and more accurate claims processing, reducing fraudulent
claims, and improving overall transparency and efficiency (Zhou, Wang & Sun, 2018).
Overall, the wide-ranging applicability of blockchain in the healthcare industry shows
great potential for improving patient outcomes, enhancing data privacy, and reducing
costs.
Government
Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionize the government sector by
enhancing transparency, security, and efficiency in a variety of areas. One of the most
promising applications of blockchain technology in government is e-government services.
By leveraging blockchain’s decentralized and secure nature, governments can offer secure
and efficient digital services, such as the issuance of licenses, permits, and certificates
(Batubara, Ubacht & Janssen, 2018). Another critical application of blockchain technology
in government is digital identity management. Blockchain-based identity systems can
provide a tamper-proof and transparent platform for managing personal data, enabling
secure and efficient digital identity verification and reducing the risk of identity theft
(Dunphy & Petitcolas, 2018). Blockchain can also be used to enhance the integrity and
transparency of e-voting systems, enabling secure and transparent voting processes that
are resistant to tampering and fraud (Pawlak, Guziur & Poniszewska-Marańda, 2019).
Furthermore, blockchain-based value registries can provide a secure and transparent
platform for recording and tracking the ownership and transfer of assets, such as land titles
or intellectual property rights (Ramya et al., 2019). Overall, the use of blockchain
technology in government has the potential to improve transparency, reduce corruption,
and enhance the efficiency and security of public services.
Artificial intelligence (AI)

The combination of blockchain and AI technologies offers a range of potential benefits
across various fields (Ogundokun et al., 2022). One of the most promising applications of

this synergy is the ability to track the provenance of AI training models, enabling greater
transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of AI systems
(Sarpatwar et al., 2019). In addition, the integration of blockchain and AI can enhance the
efficiency and security of transportation systems. By leveraging blockchain’s decentralized
and secure nature and AI’s predictive capabilities, transportation networks can be
optimized for faster, more efficient, and safer operations (Yuan & Wang, 2016; Singh et al.,
2022). Furthermore, the use of blockchain and AI can improve the control of robots,
enabling more sophisticated and autonomous decision-making capabilities. This can
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of a range of industries, from manufacturing to
healthcare (Lopes, Alexandre & Pereira, 2019). The synergy of blockchain and AI can also
support the development of IoT networks, providing a secure and transparent platform for
managing the vast amounts of data generated by IoT devices. This can enable more
efficient and effective management of IoT networks, enhancing their potential to
revolutionize various industries (Singh, Rathore & Park, 2020). Overall, the integration of
blockchain and AI has the potential to enhance the efficiency, security, and transparency of
a range of industries, offering exciting possibilities for the future of technology.
Decentralized AI
Decentralized Artificial Intelligence (DAI) represents a revolutionary AI system that
harnesses the power of Blockchain technology to store and process data. Unlike centralized
AI systems controlled by a single authority, DAI relies on consensus among multiple
nodes, ensuring a more secure, transparent, and trustworthy approach to decision-making
(Adel, Elhakeem & Marzouk, 2022; Rana et al., 2022). The prevalence of AI has surged in
recent years, with organizations increasingly adopting AI systems. The average number of
AI systems per organization has doubled (Sharma, 2023) from 1.9 in 2018 to 3.8 in 2022.
While AI offers enhanced technologies and solutions across industries, its implementation
can be costly, potentially leaving some behind in the digital divide. However, AI’s potential
in Metaverse development is significant (Hwang & Chien, 2022; Cao, 2022). Centralized AI
systems face critical challenges due to their dependence on large data sets, raising concerns
about democratizing data and intelligence or retaining control within a few organizations.
To address these challenges, decentralized AI powered by Blockchain technology emerges
as a solution. Decentralized AI projects benefit from the openness and traceability of
shared ledgers, making them publicly verifiable by anyone. Platforms like SingularityNet
enable smaller companies to offer AI applications as a service, democratizing market access
for startups. Decentralization also fosters increased innovation by allowing multiple
entities to contribute to AI system development and decision-making. This diversity of
perspectives leads to a wider range of ideas and advancements in the AI landscape (Cao,
2022).
Big data
Blockchain technology has significant potential to address some of the key challenges in
the field of big data. By leveraging blockchain’s decentralized and secure nature, a data-
sharing platform can be established that enables the secure and efficient exchange of data

among all involved parties (Chen & Xue, 2017). In addition, the use of blockchain can
improve the reliability of big data by ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the data shared
between parties (Abdullah, Hakansson & Moradian, 2017). This can enhance the
trustworthiness of big data analytics and enable more informed decision-making
processes. Moreover, blockchain technology can increase the security of big data by
providing robust cryptographic protection against tampering, hacking, and other security
threats. This can help to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data, safeguarding it from
malicious attacks. Furthermore, the use of blockchain can provide timestamping
capabilities, enabling the creation of an immutable record of all transactions and
interactions between parties. This can enhance the auditability and traceability of big data,
enabling greater transparency and accountability. Overall, the use of blockchain
technology in big data has the potential to improve data sharing, reliability, security, and
timestamping, enabling more efficient and effective management of big data analytics.
Money transfers
Blockchain enables fast cross-border transactions, completing within minutes compared to
traditional transfers taking days with high fees and intermediaries (Hashemi Joo,
Nishikawa & Dandapani, 2020). By eliminating intermediaries like banks, blockchain
reduces transaction costs, making transfers more affordable. Its decentralized and
encrypted nature ensures secure transactions, with each transaction recorded
transparently and immutably, preventing fraud. Users can track fund flow in real-time,
enhancing trust and accountability.
Lending
Blockchain smart contracts automate lending, eliminating intermediaries like banks.
Borrowers directly interact with the contract, which executes loan terms automatically
when conditions are met, streamlining the process and reducing overhead (Chen et al.,
2018). Smart contracts operate on a transparent and immutable blockchain ledger,
ensuring transparency and trust for all parties. Borrowers and lenders have complete
visibility into loan terms, and execution is verifiable by stakeholders. Blockchain’s
decentralized nature reduces fraud risk, and cryptographic techniques ensure data privacy
during lending. By eliminating intermediaries and automating processes, blockchain smart
contracts significantly reduce lending operational costs, benefiting borrowers and lenders.
Smart contracts expedite loan approvals by automating verification steps, benefiting
borrowers in urgent financial situations. Smart contracts manage collateral for secured
loans, automatically releasing it to borrowers or transferring ownership to lenders when
conditions are not met. Smart contracts accommodate various loan terms, customized to
suit borrowers’ needs. Blockchain smart contracts enable borderless lending, offering
opportunities worldwide without intermediaries.
Insurance
Financial insurance encompasses a wide array of activities, from stock trading and equity
management to bonds, fundraising, inter-institutional clearing and settlement, fund
management, and the issuance of insurance certificates. However, maintaining the

authenticity of financial interests and ensuring secure transactions between untrusted
parties has been a persistent challenge in this sector (Weber, 2010). For example, within
insurance management, trust is a fundamental element, and traditional social trust
mechanisms often fall short of meeting the evolving needs of the social economy. To
address this, the integration of blockchain technology, encryption, distribution, and related
identification technology offers a comprehensive framework and solution for the unique
identity challenge. This integration ensures the authenticity and reliability of information
and data, while also providing effective source tracking and robust technical support for
preventing insurance fraud. By combining blockchain’s timestamping and distributed
features with IoT (Internet of Things) technology, we have the opportunity to solve the
insurance sector’s problems. Moreover, blockchain facilitates inter-temporal information
management and encourages innovation in insurance products and services, particularly
in fragmented scenarios. This innovation enables the development of more detailed and
flexible insurance solutions tailored to specific risk objectives. As a result, it supports the
implementation of personalized and efficient insurance services. The introduction of
blockchain, coupled with smart contracts, offers significant advantages to the insurance
sector. Smart contracts enable the transparent recording of claims on an immutable ledger,
reducing the risk of duplicate claims (Raikwar et al., 2018). This, in turn, leads to faster
claims processing, ensuring swift compensation for customers. The decentralized nature of
blockchain technology provides robust security for sensitive data, fostering trust between
customers and insurance providers (Saldamli et al., 2020). This technology-driven
approach revolutionizes insurance operations, delivering transparency, expediting
settlements, and enhancing security. Ultimately, it paves the way for a more sustainable
and efficient insurance industry (Crawford, 2017).
Secure personal information

The utilization of blockchain technology to secure and manage personal identifying
information, such as Social Security numbers and date of birth, presents a compelling
approach to address the security vulnerabilities prevalent in conventional centralized
systems. By leveraging the decentralized and immutable nature of blockchain, the risk of
data breaches and unauthorized access can be substantially mitigated (Takemiya &
Vanieiev, 2018; Hakak et al., 2020).
Voting
If we store personal identity information on a blockchain, it brings us closer to the
possibility of using blockchain for voting. Blockchain technology ensures that nobody can
vote twice, only eligible voters can participate, and no one can alter votes. Additionally, it
makes voting more accessible by allowing people to vote easily through their smartphones
with just a few taps. Using blockchain for voting would also reduce the cost of conducting
elections significantly (Yavuz et al., 2018; Shahzad & Crowcroft, 2019; Hanifatunnisa &
Rahardjo, 2017).

Proof of ownership
The concept of proof of ownership encompasses the establishment of ownership for a wide
spectrum of assets, spanning both physical and intangible realms. This spectrum includes
property certificates, patents, trademarks, and copyrights, with copyrights being of
particular significance. Copyrights grant authors of literary, artistic, and scientific works a
combination of personal and property rights over their creations. However, in the face of
the expanding content industry, intellectual property infringement has surged as a critical
concern. Despite the presence of government policies and regulations aimed at
safeguarding intellectual property rights, piracy persists as an enduring problem, resulting
in substantial economic losses for the rightful owners of such assets (Dramé-Maigné et al.,
2018; Crosby et al., 2016). In addressing this persistent issue of piracy, blockchain
technology emerges as an ideal solution due to its seamless integration with digital
copyright protection systems. Significantly, the current process of confirming copyright
protection is often marred by its time-consuming and inefficient nature, a challenge that
blockchain technology is well-equipped to overcome. Leveraging distributed ledger and
timestamp technologies inherent in blockchain expedites the consensus-building process
concerning intellectual property ownership and associated rights. Consequently,
blockchain technology offers a promising avenue for timely copyright confirmation,
mitigating the inefficiencies inherent in the present system. Additionally, asymmetric
encryption technology ensures the uniqueness of copyright, while timestamping provides a
clear and indisputable means of identifying copyright ownership. As a result, copyright
owners can efficiently and promptly verify their rights, ultimately leading to a more
effective system of copyright protection.
Furthermore, blockchain technology extends its transformative potential to support
artists in securing their intellectual property rights on the Internet. By harnessing the
decentralized and immutable nature of blockchain, artists can establish a transparent and
tamper-proof record of their creative works, granting them heightened control and
security over their intellectual property rights. Notably, blockchain’s innate capability to
prevent the duplication of files positions it as a potent tool in combating piracy within the
digital domain. The implementation of blockchain to track playbacks on streaming
services, coupled with the utilization of smart contracts for payment distribution, promises
artists greater transparency and assurance in receiving fair compensation for their creative
endeavors. This multifaceted approach underscores the transformative impact that
blockchain can have in empowering artists and safeguarding their rights in the digital age
(Gürkaynak et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019a; Tsai et al., 2017; Singh & Tripathi, 2019).
Maritime supply-chain management

As the world continues to globalise, international trade and logistics are expanding rapidly.
Marine logistics has long been a crucial economic mode of transportation. Technological
advances, such as the Internet of Things and high-performance big data analysis, have led
to the proposal of numerous blockchain-based solutions for big data analysis (Jiaguo Liu &
Zhen, 2023).

LIMITATIONS OF BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY
Blockchain technology has some important limitations and misconceptions also (Yaga
et al., 2018; Malik et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2022; Taherdoost, 2022) and also by Biswas
(2023).
Interoperability
The diversity in protocols, algorithms, and data structures across various blockchains
hinders seamless information exchange, limiting their potential as universal transaction
platforms. For example, blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum lack meaningful
communication capabilities, impeding complex applications. This is exacerbated by
disparate programming languages for their smart contracts, necessitating dual proficiency
for developers. The absence of interoperability leads to high transaction fees and constrains
multi-network applications, curbing the broader adoption of blockchain technology.
Initiatives to foster data transfer between blockchains are emerging, but interoperability
remains a significant challenge (Belchior et al., 2021).
Distributed nature
A Blockchain functions by dispersing data across a network, forming an uninterrupted
series of records resistant to tampering and modification. This architecture integrates
blocks containing data or executable programs. Each block aggregates discrete transactions
and the results of executed blockchain operations. The bedrock of trust within the
blockchain framework emanates from the widespread presence of a complete chain replica,
meticulously recording every transaction, consistently upheld throughout the network.
However, managing this decentralized system, characterized by participants spanning
numerous computers, can prove intricate, particularly concerning consensus and
maintaining synchronization among all stakeholders (Patel et al., 2020).
Private keys
The security of the blockchain network is primarily upheld by the concept of private keys.
These private keys play a crucial role in validating blockchain addresses and ensuring the
integrity of transactions. When a user opens a cryptocurrency wallet, they are provided
with a unique private key, which essentially serves as a password granting access to
withdraw funds from the wallet. Losing the private key can be catastrophic, as it renders
the user unable to access their funds. To mitigate this risk, it is essential to store multiple
copies of the private key securely. This way, if the original key is lost or compromised, the
user can still rely on one of the backup copies to regain access to their wallet. However, the
practice of maintaining multiple copies of the private key also introduces a potential
vulnerability. If unauthorized individuals gain access to any of these copies, the entire
crypto wallet becomes compromised, exposing the user’s assets to theft or misuse (Malik
et al., 2019). Unlike typical passwords used for social media or email accounts, private keys
cannot be changed once they are generated. This lack of flexibility in altering private keys
further emphasizes the need for utmost caution in their storage and protection.

No trusted third party
Trusted third parties such as banks, institutions, and governmental bodies, despite
regulatory oversight, still have vulnerabilities—banks can collapse, work providers can face
insolvency, and officials can exhibit corruption. In contrast, the blockchain presents a
practical alternative, functioning autonomously and obviating the requirement for
intermediaries, thereby guaranteeing dependable execution without dependence on
conventional trusted institutions (Halaburda, 2018; Gamage, Weerasinghe & Dias, 2020).
However, while the trustless nature of the blockchain offers advantages, it also introduces
uncertainties, particularly in cases of transaction failures where traditional banks assume
responsibility, raising questions about accountability in blockchain-based systems
(Bitstamp Learn, 2022).
High cost
The adoption of blockchain technology entails significant financial investments, making it
a capital-intensive endeavor for most companies. This financial barrier serves as a
deterrent to many enterprises considering the implementation of blockchain solutions.
Company owners seeking to incorporate blockchain into their operations must be
prepared for substantial expenses (Zhang et al., 2020a; Alammary et al., 2019). One of the
primary cost components is the need to hire proficient and specialized personnel. This
includes hiring core blockchain developers and blockchain software developers who
possess the expertise to design, build, and maintain blockchain systems. Given the scarcity
of skilled professionals in this domain, the cost of acquiring such talent can be substantial.
Additionally, the development of blockchain-based applications further adds to the
financial burden. Companies must allocate resources to create applications that leverage
blockchain technology effectively, tailored to meet their specific needs and requirements.
Moreover, the hardware infrastructure necessary to support blockchain networks
contributes to the overall expenses. The robust and decentralized nature of blockchain
demands sophisticated hardware setups capable of maintaining the integrity and security
of the distributed ledger.
Transactional workflow
The inherent distribution in blockchains renders them especially well-suited for inter-
organizational e-Business applications (Lokshina, 2022). By cryptographically endorsing
blocks housing transactions, blockchains establish an immutable record. Within a
distributed blockchain, participants create a peer-to-peer (P2P) network to autonomously
verify transactions and integrate them into the blockchain. In the context of inter-
organizational workflow management, consensus among participants is pivotal to
determine work status, influencing the array of subsequent valid actions in the process.
However, while blockchain is tailored for high-frequency transactions such as commercial
exchanges, its alignment might not be optimal for all systems’ workflows that don’t
necessitate this level of transaction frequency (Evermann & Kim, 2019).

Anonymity
Preserving the anonymity of blockchain transactions is fundamental to their acceptance
within these frameworks. The challenge lies in striking a balance between maintaining
privacy for both blockchain participants and transactions, while enabling verification by
other members for blockchain updates. The existing pseudonymous nature of most
blockchain-based e-cash protocols falls short of providing comprehensive identity and
transaction privacy. While anonymity is a pivotal trait of blockchain technology,
safeguarding users from revealing their actual identities, it also evokes concerns,
particularly in the context of money laundering. Anonymity empowers individuals to
conduct global fund transfers without traceable evidence beyond wallet addresses.
Consequently, the blockchain has gained favor among cybercriminals engaged in money
laundering endeavors (Andola et al., 2021).
Immutability
Blockchain technology inherently embodies immutability, a property wherein recorded
information becomes unalterable once committed to the blockchain. This property aligns
logically with the design of systems. However, in the context of archives, which house
records susceptible to long-term changes, the concept of immutable data presents a dual
challenge. Archives necessitate the capacity to modify records’ metadata, ensuring both
authenticity after digital preservation actions and the preservation of relationships with
subsequent records introduced after an initial record’s entry into the archive, registered
within a blockchain. The imperative to maintain archival bonds, signifying networks of
relationships among aggregated records, exemplifies this requirement. Thus, the
dichotomous nature of immutability mandates judicious contemplation, encompassing
both its merits and limitations within archival frameworks (Stančić & Bralić, 2021; Politou
et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2019).
Storage problems
In a blockchain system, like Bitcoin for instance, each node operates independently
without needing a central authority. Every node stores a complete record of all transactions
in a database. However, this decentralized setup leads to a notable outcome—the
transaction database grows rapidly over time. As the system keeps working, the memory
capacity of each node has to keep expanding to handle its operations smoothly. This
becomes even more crucial in the context of today’s huge data era, where more network
activity results in transactions happening faster. This means that nodes that hold all the
data (full nodes) need more memory to make sure transactions are checked properly. And
in the era of big data, where there’s a lot of information being exchanged, the number of
nodes connected to the blockchain network is also increasing, leading to even more growth
in the blockchain’s transaction database. This poses challenges because the more users
there are, the more data there is to store within the blockchain system (Xu et al., 2020; Jia
et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).

Real-time monitoring and full provenance
A blockchain operates through a network of peers engaging in Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
transactions. Peers record transactions within a given time span and bundle them into a
block for incorporation into the blockchain. The decentralized nature of blockchain
ensures resilience against tampering and facilitates traceability. Smart contracts, integral to
blockchain, are coded agreements governed by event triggers. As no central entity governs
them, they inherently engender trust (Zheng et al., 2018a). The invocation of a blockchain
smart contract occurs by dispatching a “transaction”—termed the invoking transaction—
to validating peers. This transaction comprises the contract’s address, the calling function,
and parameters. Upon receipt, peers execute the smart contract independently.
Subsequently, consensus is achieved among distinct peers through consensus protocols,
culminating in the recording of the execution outcome in the blockchain. Blockchain-
based smart contracts offer enhanced trustworthiness, reduced reliance on centralized
authorities, and expansive applicability. This decentralized framework functions without
central authority. Nevertheless, instances arise necessitating real-time monitoring between
regulators and participants, and an exhaustive record of past transactions and assets
remains vital (Helo & Shamsuzzoha, 2020).
Other considerations
When considering the use of blockchain, there are important things to think about. These
factors include needing a unique digital identifier that should work worldwide, a
decentralized naming service, a way to securely show who owns what, and making it easier
to solve problems and disagreements without manual effort.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, blockchain technology holds tremendous potential to transform various
industries by providing a secure, transparent, and decentralized system for data
management and transaction processing. The inclusion of smart contracts has made
blockchain technology even more intelligent, intricate, and automated. The integration of
existing scientific research into the blockchain system is feasible and can take its
application to the next level. Although the technology has already demonstrated its value
in sectors such as finance, supply chain management, and healthcare, its utilization is
expected to expand further in the future. Blockchain’s unique features, such as distributed
storage, decentralized management, shared maintenance, consensus trust, and a reliable
database, can help overcome many of the challenges posed by conventional centralized
systems, including security, transparency, and efficiency. However, there are still technical
and regulatory challenges that need to be addressed before blockchain technology can be
fully integrated into mainstream systems. Nevertheless, the growing adoption of
blockchain by major corporations and governments globally confirms its potential as a
disruptive technology that can reshape the way we store, manage, and exchange data.
While blockchain technology is already being utilized in some exclusive domains, its
application and development will undoubtedly require a considerable amount of time. As
with other emerging technologies, it is vital to gather experience and knowledge to refine

and enhance blockchain’s capabilities. Additionally, extensive research, experimentation,
and innovation will be necessary to overcome potential limitations and challenges,
ensuring its continued progress and success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
Funding
This article is supported by the project supported by the Key Scientific Research Projects of
Colleges and Universities in Henan Province (Grand No. 23A520054), and the Open
Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology (Beijing
University of Posts and Telecommunications) (KLNST-2020-2-01). The funders had no
role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Grant Disclosures
The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
Key Scientific Research Projects of Colleges and Universities in Henan Province:
23A520054.
Networking and Switching Technology (Beijing University of Posts and
Telecommunications): KLNST-2020-2-01.
Competing Interests
Shi Dong is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.
Author Contributions
Shi Dong conceived and designed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables,
authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Khushnood Abbas conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts
of the article, and approved the final draft.
Meixi Li conceived and designed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables,
authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Joarder Kamruzzaman conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed
drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
This is a literature review.

REFERENCES
Abdullah N, Hakansson A, Moradian E. 2017. Blockchain based approach to enhance big data
authentication in distributed environment. In: 2017 Ninth International Conference on
Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN). 887–892.
Adel K, Elhakeem A, Marzouk M. 2022. Decentralizing construction AI applications using
blockchain technology. Expert Systems with Applications 194(1):116548
DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116548.
Agrawal R, Verma P, Sonanis R, Goel U, De A, Kondaveeti SA, Shekhar S. 2018. Continuous
security in iot using blockchain. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing (ICASSP). Piscataway: IEEE, 6423–6427.
Ahmed WAH. 2022. Blockchain technology applications in the supply chain: a critical analysis.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.
Al-Jaroodi J, Mohamed N. 2019. Blockchain in industries: a survey. IEEE Access 7:36500–36515
DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2903554.
Alam T. 2019. Blockchain and its role in the internet of things (IoT). International Journal of
Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology 5(1):151–157
DOI 10.32628/CSEIT195137.
Alammary A, Alhazmi S, Almasri M, Gillani S. 2019. Blockchain-based applications in education:
a systematic review. Applied Sciences 9(12):2400 DOI 10.3390/app9122400.
Alangot B, Reijsbergen D, Venugopalan S, Szalachowski P. 2020. Decentralized lightweight
detection of eclipse attacks on bitcoin clients. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on
Blockchain (Blockchain). 337–342.
Amsden Z, Arora R, Bano S, Baudet M, Blackshear S, Bothra A, Cabrera G, Catalini C, Chalkias
K, Cheng E, Ching A, Chursin A, Danezis G, Di Giacomo G, Dill DL, Ding H, Doudchenko
N, Gao V, Gao Z, Garillot F, Gorven M, Hayes P, Hou JM, Hu Y, Hurley K, Lewi K, Li C, Li Z,
Malkhi D, Margulis S, Maurer B, Mohassel P, de Naurois L, Nikolaenko V, Nowacki T, Orlov
O, Perelman D, Pott A, Proctor B, Qadeer S, Rain, Russi D, Schwab B, Sezer S, Sonnino A,
Venter H, Wei L, Wernerfelt N, Williams B, Wu Q, Yan X, Zakian T, Zhou R. 2020. The
Libra Blockchain. Available at https://diem-developers-components.netlify.app/papers/the-diem-
blockchain/2020-05-26.pdf (accessed 11 November 2023).
Andola N, Raghav, Yadav VK, Venkatesan S, Verma S. 2021. Anonymity on blockchain based
e-cash protocols—A survey. Computer Science Review 40(2):100394
DOI 10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100394.
Balon B, Kalinowski K, Paprocka I. 2022. Application of blockchain technology in production
scheduling and management of human resources competencies. Sensors 22(8):2844
DOI 10.3390/s22082844.
Batubara FR, Ubacht J, Janssen M. 2018. Challenges of blockchain technology adoption for
e-government: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International
Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, dg.o ’18. New York,
NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
Belchior R, Vasconcelos A, Guerreiro S, Correia M. 2021. A survey on blockchain
interoperability: past, present, and future trends. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54(8):168
DOI 10.1145/3471140.
Benchoufi M, Porcher R, Ravaud P. 2017. Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: transparency and
traceability of consent. F1000Research 6:66 DOI 10.12688/F1000RESEARCH.10531.1.
Bergquist J, Laszka A, Sturm M, Dubey A. 2017. On the design of communication and
transaction anonymity in blockchain-based transactive microgrids. In: Proceedings of the 1st

Workshop on Scalable and Resilient Infrastructures for Distributed Ledgers, SERIAL ’17.
New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
Bhushan B, Sahoo C, Sinha P, Khamparia A. 2021a. Unification of blockchain and internet of
things (biot): requirements, working model, challenges and future directions. Wireless Networks
27(1):55–90 DOI 10.1007/s11276-020-02445-6.
Bhushan B, Sinha P, Sagayam KM, Andrew J. 2021b. Untangling blockchain technology: a survey
on state of the art, security threats, privacy services, applications and future research directions.
Computers & Electrical Engineering 90(9):106897 DOI 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2020.106897.
Bilogrivic M, Stublic H. 2023. Application of blockchain technology and nfts in a museum
environment. In: Cisic D, Vrcek N, Koricic M, Gradisnik V, Skala K, Car Z, Cicin-Sain M,
Babic S, Sruk V, Skvorc D, Jovic A, Gros S, Vrdoljak B, Tijan E, Katulic T, Petrovic J, Grbac TG,
Bozicevic L, eds. 46th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention, MIPRO 2023, May 22-26, 2023.
Piscataway: IEEE, 1353–1358.
Biswas S. 2023. Disadvantages of blockchain technology. Cleartax. Available at https://cleartax.in/
s/disadvantages-of-blockchain (accessed 15 November 2023).
Bitstamp Learn. 2022. Trustlessness and security on Blockchain-Bitstamp Learn Center, Learn
Center. Available at https://www.bitstamp.net/learn/security/blockchain-trustlessness-security/
(accessed 11 November 2023).
Bodkhe U, Tanwar S, Parekh K, Khanpara P, Tyagi S, Kumar N, Alazab M. 2020. Blockchain for
industry 4.0: a comprehensive review. IEEE Access 8:79764–79800
DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988579.
Budiharso T, Tarman B. 2020. Improving quality education through better working conditions of
academic institutes. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies 7(1):99–115 DOI 10.29333/ejecs/306.
Burchert C, Wattenhofer R. 2018. pichain: when a blockchain meets paxos. In: 21st International
Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2017). vol. 95, Schloss Dagstuhl-
Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2.
Cao L. 2022. Decentralized AI: edge intelligence and smart blockchain, metaverse, web3, and desci.
IEEE Intelligent Systems 37(3):6–19 DOI 10.1109/MIS.2022.3181504.
Castro M, Liskov B. 1999. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In: Seltzer MI, Leach PJ, eds.
Proceedings of the Third USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation
(OSDI), February 22-25, 1999. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA: USENIX Association, 173–186.
Charapko A, Ailijiang A, Demirbas M. 2018. Bridging paxos and blockchain consensus. In: 2018
IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and
Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and
IEEE Smart Data (SmartData). Piscataway: IEEE, 1545–1552.
Chen Y, Lu Y, Bulysheva L, Kataev MY. 2022. Applications of blockchain in industry 4.0: a review.
Information Systems Frontiers 1–15 DOI 10.1007/s10796-022-10248-7.
Chen W, Xu Z, Shi S, Zhao Y, Zhao J. 2018. A survey of blockchain applications in different
domains. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Blockchain Technology and
Application. 17–21.
Chen J, Xue Y. 2017. Bootstrapping a blockchain based ecosystem for big data exchange. In: 2017
IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress). 460–463.
Chepurnoy A, Duong T, Fan L, Zhou H-S. 2017. Twinscoin: a cryptocurrency via proof-of-work
and proof-of-stake. Cryptology ePrint Archive 232.
Chowdhury MJM, Colman A, Kabir MA, Han J, Sarda P. 2018. Blockchain versus database: a
critical analysis. In: 2018 17th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in

Computing and Communications/12th IEEE International Conference on Big Data Science and
Engineering (TrustCom/BigDataSE). Piscataway: IEEE, 1348–1353.
Christidis K, Devetsikiotis M. 2016. Blockchains and smart contracts for the internet of things.
IEEE Access 4:2292–2303 DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339.
Crawford M. 2017. The insurance implications of blockchain. Risk Management 64(2):24.
Crosby M, Nachiappan, Pattanayak P, Verma S, Kalyanaraman V. 2016. Blockchain technology:
beyond bitcoin. Applied Innovation Review 2(6–10):71.
Cui Y. 2022. Special reports on the development of artificial intelligence and the rule of law.
Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 129–206.
da Silva TB, de Morais ES, de Almeida LFF, da Rosa Righi R, Alberti AM. 2020. Blockchain and
industry 4.0: overview, convergence, and analysis. In: Blockchain Technology for Industry 4.0:
Secure, Decentralized, Distributed and Trusted Industry Environment. Cham: Springer, 27–58.
Dai W, Deng J, Wang Q, Cui C, Zou D, Jin H. 2018. Sblwt: a secure blockchain lightweight wallet
based on trustzone. IEEE access 6:40638–40648 DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2856864.
Dai H-N, Zheng Z, Zhang Y. 2019. Blockchain for internet of things: a survey. IEEE Internet of
Things Journal 6(5):8076–8094 DOI 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2920987.
de Best R. 2023. Bitcoin blockchain size 2009–2023, Statista. Available at https://www.statista.com/
statistics/647523/worldwide-bitcoin-blockchain-size/ (accessed 11 November 2023).
de Ocáriz Borde HS. 2022. An overview of trees in blockchain technology: merkle trees and merkle
patricia tries. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358740207_An_Overview_
of_Trees_in_Blockchain_Technology_Merkle_Trees_and_Merkle_Patricia_Tries.
Decker C, Wattenhofer R. 2014. Bitcoin transaction malleability and mtgox. In: Kutyłowski M,
Vaidya J, eds. Computer Security—ESORICS 2014. Cham: Springer International Publishing,
313–326.
Deng X, Li K, Wang Z, Li J, Luo Z. 2022. A survey of blockchain consensus algorithms. In: 2022
International Conference on Blockchain Technology and Information Security (ICBCTIS).
Dramé-Maigné S, Laurent M, Castillo L, Ganem H. 2018. Augmented chain of ownership:
configuring IoT devices with the help of the blockchain. In: Security and Privacy in
Communication Networks: 14th International Conference, SecureComm 2018, August 8-10, 2018,
Proceedings, Part I. Cham: Springer, 53–68.
Dunphy P, Petitcolas FA. 2018. A first look at identity management schemes on the blockchain.
IEEE Security & Privacy 16(4):20–29 DOI 10.1109/MSP.2018.3111247.
Egelund-Müller B, Elsman M, Henglein F, Ross O. 2017. Automated execution of financial
contracts on blockchains. Business & Information Systems Engineering 59(6):457–467
DOI 10.1007/s12599-017-0507-z.
Evermann J, Kim H. 2019. Workflow management on the blockchain—Implications and
recommendations. arXiv preprint DOI 10.48550/arXiv.1904.01004.
Eyal I. 2022. On cryptocurrency wallet design. In: 3rd International Conference on Blockchain
Economics, Security and Protocols (Tokenomics 2021). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für
Informatik.
Gad AG, Mosa DT, Abualigah L, Abohany AA. 2022. Emerging trends in blockchain technology
and applications: a review and outlook. Journal of King Saud University Computer and
Information Sciences 34(9):6719–6742 DOI 10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.03.007.
Gamage H, Weerasinghe H, Dias N. 2020. A survey on blockchain technology concepts,
applications, and issues. SN Computer Science 1(2):1–15 DOI 10.1007/s42979-020-00123-0.

Gan S. 2017. An IoT simulator in NS3 and a key-based authentication architecture for IoT devices
using blockchain. Available at https://dokumen.tips/documents/an-iot-simulator-in-ns3-and-a-
key-based-authentication-thesis-title-an-iot.html.
Garay J, Kiayias A, Leonardos N. 2015. The bitcoin backbone protocol: analysis and applications.
In: Oswald E, Fischlin M, eds. Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2015. Berlin, Heidelberg,
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 281–310.
Gaži P, Kiayias A, Zindros D. 2019. Proof-of-stake sidechains. In: 2019 IEEE Symposium on
Security and Privacy (SP). Piscataway: IEEE, 139–156.
Gemeliarana IGAK, Sari RF. 2018. Evaluation of proof of work (pow) blockchains security
network on selfish mining. In: 2018 International Seminar on Research of Information
Technology and Intelligent Systems (ISRITI). Piscataway: IEEE, 126–130.
Gervais A, Karame GO, Wüst K, Glykantzis V, Ritzdorf H, Capkun S. 2016. On the security and
performance of proof of work blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference
on Computer and Communications Security. 3–16.
Gordon WJ, Catalini C. 2018. Blockchain technology for healthcare: facilitating the transition to
patient-driven interoperability. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
16(2016):224–230 DOI 10.1016/j.csbj.2018.06.003.
Guegan D. 2020. Types of blockchains explained-public Vs. Private Vs. Consortium. Available at
https://www.blockchain-council.org/blockchain/types-of-blockchains-explained-public-vs-private-
vs-consortium/.
Guo S, Sun X, Lam HKS. 2023. Applications of blockchain technology in sustainable fashion
supply chains: operational transparency and environmental efforts. IEEE Trans. Engineering
Management 70(4):1312–1328 DOI 10.1109/TEM.2020.3034216.
Gupta SP, Gupta K, Chandavarkar BR. 2021. The role of cryptography in cryptocurrency. In:
2021 2nd International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communications (ICSCCC).
273–278.
Gupta BB, Mamta, Mehla R, Alhalabi W, Alsharif H. 2022. Blockchain technology with its
application in medical and healthcare systems: a survey. International Journal of Intelligent
Systems 37(11):9798–9832 DOI 10.1002/INT.23014.
Guru A, Mohanta BK, Mohapatra H, Al-Turjman F, Altrjman C, Yadav A. 2023. A survey on
consensus protocols and attacks on blockchain technology. Applied Sciences 13(4):2604
DOI 10.3390/app13042604.
Gürkaynak G, Yılmaz I, Yeşilaltay B, Bengi B. 2018. Intellectual property law and practice in the
blockchain realm. Computer Law & Security Review 34(4):847–862
DOI 10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.027.
Habib G, Sharma S, Ibrahim S, Ahmad I, Qureshi S, Ishfaq M. 2022. Blockchain technology:
benefits, challenges, applications, and integration of blockchain technology with cloud
computing. Future Internet 14(11):341 DOI 10.3390/fi14110341.
Hakak S, Khan WZ, Gilkar GA, Imran M, Guizani N. 2020. Securing smart cities through
blockchain technology: architecture, requirements, and challenges. IEEE Network 34(1):8–14
DOI 10.1109/MNET.001.1900178.
Halaburda H. 2018. Blockchain revolution without the blockchain? Communications of the ACM
61(7):27–29 DOI 10.1145/3225619.
Hancock M, Vaizey E. 2016. Distributed ledger technology: beyond block chain. Government
Office for Science UK. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/distributed-ledger-
technology-beyond-block-chain.

Hanifatunnisa R, Rahardjo B. 2017. Blockchain based e-voting recording system design. In: 2017
11th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems Services and Applications (TSSA).
Hashemi Joo M, Nishikawa Y, Dandapani K. 2020. Cryptocurrency, a successful application of
blockchain technology. Managerial Finance 46(6):715–733 DOI 10.1108/MF-09-2018-0451.
Helo P, Shamsuzzoha A. 2020. Real-time supply chain—a blockchain architecture for project
deliveries. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 63(12):101909
DOI 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101909.
Houy S, Schmid P, Bartel A. 2024. Security aspects of cryptocurrency wallets-a systematic
literature review. ACM Computing Surveys 56(1):4:1–4:31 DOI 10.1145/3596906.
Hua J, Wang X, Kang M, Wang H, Wang F-Y. 2018. Blockchain based provenance for
agricultural products: a distributed platform with duplicated and shared bookkeeping. In: 2018
IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). 97–101.
Huckle S, Bhattacharya R, White M, Beloff N. 2016. Internet of things, blockchain and shared
economy applications. Procedia Computer Science 98(2):461–466
DOI 10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.074.
Hughes L, Dwivedi YK, Misra SK, Rana NP, Raghavan V, Akella V. 2019. Blockchain research,
practice and policy: applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and research
agenda. International Journal of Information Management 49(9):114–129
DOI 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.005.
Hwang G-J, Chien S-Y. 2022. Definition, roles, and potential research issues of the metaverse in
education: an artificial intelligence perspective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
3(3):100082 DOI 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100082.
Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Khan S, Suman R. 2021. Blockchain technology applications for
industry 4.0: a literature-based review. Blockchain: Research and Applications 2(4):100027
DOI 10.1016/j.bcra.2021.100027.
Jia D, Xin J, Wang Z, Wang G. 2021. Optimized data storage method for sharding-based
blockchain. IEEE Access 9:67890–67900 DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3077650.
Jiaguo Liu HZ, Zhen L. 2023. Blockchain technology in maritime supply chains: applications,
architecture and challenges. International Journal of Production Research 61(11):3547–3563
DOI 10.1080/00207543.2021.1930239.
Karafiloski E, Mishev A. 2017. Blockchain solutions for big data challenges: a literature review. In:
IEEE EUROCON, 2017–17th International Conference on Smart Technologies. 763–768.
Katte S. 2022. What is a phishing attack in crypto, and how to prevent it?, Cointelegraph. Available
at https://cointelegraph.com/learn/what-is-a-phishing-attack-in-crypto-and-how-to-prevent-it
(accessed 11 November 2023).
Katte S. 2023. 5 sneaky tricks crypto phishing scammers used last year: SlowMist-
COINTELEGRAPH, Cointelegraph. Available at https://cointelegraph.com/news/5-sneaky-
tricks-crypto-phishing-scammers-used-last-year-slowmist (accessed 11 November 2023).
Kaur S, Chaturvedi S, Sharma A, Kar J. 2021. A research survey on applications of consensus
protocols in blockchain. Security and Communication Networks 2021(9):6693731:1–6693731:22
DOI 10.1155/2021/6693731.
Khan MA, Salah K. 2018. IoT security: review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges. Future
Generation Computer Systems 82(15):395–411 DOI 10.1016/j.future.2017.11.022.
Koens T, Poll E. 2018. What blockchain alternative do you need? In: Data Privacy Management,
Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology: ESORICS 2018 International Workshops, DPM
2018 and CBT 2018, September 6-7, 2018. Cham: Springer, 113–129.

Kong S. 2021. Why alibaba needs to go all in on blockchain, decrypt. Available at https://decrypt.co/
66284/why-alibaba-needs-to-go-all-in-on-blockchain (accessed 11 November 2023).
Kooshari A, Fartash M. 2023. A distributed and secure software architecture based on blockchain
technology for application software. Wireless Personal Communications 130(1):219–240
DOI 10.1007/s11277-023-10282-x.
Kumar KS, Yadav D, Joshi SK, Chakravarthi MK, Jain AK, Tripathi V. 2022. Blockchain
technology with applications to distributed control and cooperative robotics. In: 5th
International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics, IC3I 2022, December
14-16, 2022. Piscataway: IEEE, 206–211.
Lashkari B, Musilek P. 2021. A comprehensive review of blockchain consensus mechanisms. IEEE
Access 9:43620–43652 DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3065880.
Levy A. 2022. 15 applications for Blockchain technology. The Motley Fool. Available at https://
www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/financials/blockchain-stocks/blockchain-
applications/ (accessed 11 November 2023).
Li W, Andreina S, Bohli J-M, Karame G. 2017. Securing proof-of-stake blockchain protocols. In:
Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology: ESORICS, 2017
International Workshops, DPM, 2017 and CBT 2017, September 14-15, 2017. Cham: Springer,
297–315.
Li D, Hu Y, Lan M. 2020. IoT device location information storage system based on blockchain.
Future Generation Computer Systems 109(1):95–102 DOI 10.1016/j.future.2020.03.025.
Liu Q, Zou X. 2019. Research on trust mechanism of cooperation innovation with big data
processing based on blockchain. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking
2019(1):26 DOI 10.1186/s13638-019-1340-5.
Lokshina IV. 2022. Revisiting state-of-the-art applications of blockchain technology in business
ecosystems: analysis of open issues and potential solutions. International Journal of
Interdisciplinary Telecommunications and Networking 14(1):1–21 DOI 10.4018/IJITN.
Lopes V, Alexandre LA, Pereira N. 2019. Controlling robots using artificial intelligence and a
consortium blockchain. ArXiv DOI 10.48550/arXiv.1903.00660.
Lundqvist T, de Blanche A, Andersson HRH. 2017. Thing-to-thing electricity micro payments
using blockchain technology. In: Global Internet of Things Summit, GIoTS 2017, Geneva,
Switzerland, June 6-9, 2017. Piscataway: IEEE, 1–6 DOI 10.1109/GIOTS.2017.8016254.
Malik A, Gautam S, Abidin S, Bhushan B. 2019. Blockchain technology-future of IoT: Including
structure, limitations and various possible attacks. In: 2019 2nd International Conference on
Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT). vol. 11100–1104.
Mattila J. 2016. The blockchain phenomenon. Berkeley Roundtable of the International Economy
16.
Mckinsey Company. 2016. Blockchain in insurance—opportunity or threat? Mckinsey. Technical
report.
Mingxiao D, Xiaofeng M, Zhe Z, Xiangwei W, Qijun C. 2017. A review on consensus algorithm
of blockchain. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).
Mirkin M, Ji Y, Pang J, Klages-Mundt A, Eyal I, Juels A. 2020. Bdos: blockchain denial-of-service.
In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications
Security, CCS ’20. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 601–619.
Mohamed N, Al-Jaroodi J. 2019. Applying blockchain in industry 4.0 applications. In: 2019
IEEE 9th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC).

Mohan AP, Mohamed Asfak R, Gladston A. 2020. Merkle tree and blockchain-based cloud data
auditing. International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing 10(3):54–66
DOI 10.4018/IJCAC.
Momtaz PP, Rennertseder K, Schröder H. 2019. Token offerings: a revolution in corporate
finance? Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3346964.
Moubarak J, Filiol E, Chamoun M. 2018. On blockchain security and relevant attacks. In: 2018
IEEE Middle East and North Africa Communications Conference (MENACOMM). Piscataway:
IEEE, 1–6.
Mukhopadhyay U, Skjellum A, Hambolu O, Oakley J, Yu L, Brooks RR. 2016. A brief survey of
cryptocurrency ystems. In: 14th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, PST 2016,
December 12-14, 2016. Piscataway: IEEE, 745–752.
Mullick MRH, Großmann M, Krieger UR. 2023. A feasibility study of a lightweight fog
computing architecture integrating blockchain technology for smart e-health applications. In:
Krieger UR, Eichler G, Erfurth C, Fahrnberger G, eds. Innovations for Community Services—
23rd International Conference, I4CS 2023, September 11-13, 2023. Cham: Springer, 253–276.
Münsing E, Mather J, Moura S. 2017. Blockchains for decentralized optimization of energy
resources in microgrid networks. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and
Applications (CCTA). Piscataway: IEEE, 2164–2171.
Nakamoto S. 2008. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Available at http://bitcoin.org/
bitcoin.pdf.
Nethravathi K, Tiwari A, Uike D, Jaiswal R, Pant K. 2022. Applications of artificial intelligence
and blockchain technology in improved supply chain financial risk management. In: 5th
International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics, IC3I 2022, December
14-16, 2022. Piscataway: IEEE, 242–246.
Ogundokun RO, Misra S, Maskeliunas R, Damasevicius R. 2022. A review on federated learning
and machine learning approaches: categorization, application areas, and blockchain technology.
Information 13(5):263 DOI 10.3390/info13050263.
Patel V, Khatiwala F, Shah K, Choksi Y. 2020. A review on blockchain technology: components,
issues and challenges. In: ICDSMLA 2019: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Data Science, Machine Learning and Applications. Cham: Springer, 1257–1262.
Pawlak M, Guziur J, Poniszewska-Marańda A. 2019. Voting process with blockchain technology:
auditable blockchain voting system. In: Xhafa F, Barolli L, Greguš M, eds. Advances in Intelligent
Networking and Collaborative Systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 233–244.
Peters GW, Panayi E. 2016. Understanding modern banking ledgers through blockchain
technologies. In: Future of Transaction Processing and Smart Contracts on the Internet of Money.
Cham: Springer International Publishing, 239–278.
Pieters JJ, Kokkinou A, van Kollenburg T. 2022. Understanding blockchain technology adoption
by non-experts: an application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT). Operations Research Forum 3(1):241 DOI 10.1007/s43069-021-00113-9.
Pilkington M. 2016. Blockchain technology: principles and applications. Post-Print.
Platt M, McBurney P. 2021. Sybil attacks on identity-augmented proof-of-stake. Computer
Networks 199(1):108424 DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108424.
Politou E, Casino F, Alepis E, Patsakis C. 2019. Blockchain mutability: challenges and proposed
solutions. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 9(4):1972–1986
DOI 10.1109/TETC.2019.2949510.

Raikwar M, Mazumdar S, Ruj S, Gupta SS, Chattopadhyay A, Lam K-Y. 2018. A blockchain
framework for insurance processes. In: 2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New
Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS). Piscataway: IEEE, 1–4.
Rajasekaran AS, Azees M, Al-Turjman F. 2022. A comprehensive survey on blockchain
technology. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52(12):102039
DOI 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102039.
Ramya UM, Sindhuja P, Atsaya RA, Bavya Dharani B, Manikanta Varshith Golla SS. 2019.
Reducing forgery in land registry system using blockchain technology. In: Luhach AK, Singh D,
Hsiung P-A, Hawari KBG, Lingras P, Singh PK, eds. Advanced Informatics for Computing
Research. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 725–734.
Ramzan S, Aqdus A, Ravi V, Koundal D, Amin R, Ghamdi MAA. 2023. Healthcare applications
using blockchain technology: motivations and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management 70(8):2874–2890 DOI 10.1109/TEM.2022.3189734.
Rana SK, Rana SK, Nisar K, Ag Ibrahim AA, Rana AK, Goyal N, Chawla P. 2022. Blockchain
technology and artificial intelligence based decentralized access control model to enable secure
interoperability for healthcare. Sustainability 14(15):9471 DOI 10.3390/su14159471.
Roman R, Zhou J, Lopez J. 2013. On the features and challenges of security and privacy in
distributed internet of things. Computer Networks 57(10):2266–2279
DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2012.12.018.
Saad SMS, Radzi RZRM. 2020. Comparative review of the blockchain consensus algorithm
between proof of stake (PoS) and delegated proof of stake (DPoS). International Journal of
Innovative Computing 10(2) DOI 10.11113/ijic.v10n2.272.
Sabry SS, Kaittan NM, Majeed I. 2019. The road to the blockchain technology: concept and types.
Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences 7(4):1821–1832 DOI 10.21533/pen.v7i4.935.
Saldamli G, Reddy V, Bojja KS, Gururaja MK, Doddaveerappa Y, Tawalbeh L. 2020. Health care
insurance fraud detection using blockchain. In: 2020 Seventh International Conference on
Software Defined Systems (SDS). Piscataway: IEEE, 145–152.
Saleh F. 2021. Blockchain without waste: proof-of-stake. The Review of Financial Studies
34(3):1156–1190 DOI 10.1093/rfs/hhaa075.
Samaniego M, Deters R. 2016. Using blockchain to push software-defined IoT components onto
edge hosts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Big Data and Advanced Wireless
Technologies, BDAW ’16. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
Sanka AI, Irfan M, Huang I, Cheung RCC. 2021. A survey of breakthrough in blockchain
technology: adoptions, applications, challenges and future research. Computer Communications
169(10):179–201 DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.12.028.
Sapra R, Dhaliwal P. 2022. Applications of blockchain technology: a review. In: Proceedings of the
2022 Fourteenth International Conference on Contemporary Computing, IC3-2022, August 4-6,
2022. Noida, India: ACM, 63–66.
Sarpatwar K, Vaculin R, Min H, Su G, Heath T, Ganapavarapu G, Dillenberger D. 2019.
Towards enabling trusted artificial intelligence via blockchain. Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 137–153.
Shahzad B, Crowcroft J. 2019. Trustworthy electronic voting using adjusted blockchain
technology. IEEE Access 7:24477–24488 DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2895670.
Sharma TK. 2022. Blockchain & role of P2P network, blockchain council. Available at https://www.
blockchain-council.org/blockchain/blockchain-role-of-p2p-network/ (accessed 11 November
2023).

Sharma TK. 2023. The potential of decentralized artificial intelligence in the future, Blockchain
Council. Available at https://www.blockchain-council.org/ai/the-potential-of-decentralized-
artificial-intelligence-in-the-future/ (accessed 11 November 2023).
Shen P, Li S, Huang M, Gao H, Li L, Li J, Lei H. 2022. A survey on safety regulation technology of
blockchain application and blockchain ecology. In: IEEE International Conference on
Blockchain, Blockchain 2022, August 22-25, 2022. Piscataway: IEEE, 494–499.
Sheth H, Dattani J. 2019. Overview of blockchain technology. Asian Journal for Convergence
5(1):1–4 DOI 10.33130/AJCT.2019v05i01.013.
Shi N. 2016. A new proof-of-work mechanism for bitcoin. Financial Innovation 2(1):1–8
DOI 10.1186/s40854-016-0045-6.
Shi S, He D, Li L, Kumar N, Khan MK, Choo K-KR. 2020. Applications of blockchain in ensuring
the security and privacy of electronic health record systems: a survey. Computers & Security
97(5):101966 DOI 10.1016/j.cose.2020.101966.
Shifferaw Y, Lemma S. 2021. Limitations of proof of stake algorithm in blockchain: a review. Zede
Journal 39(1):81–95.
Sicari S, Rizzardi A, Grieco L, Coen-Porisini A. 2015. Security, privacy and trust in internet of
things: the road ahead. Computer Networks 76(15):146–164 DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2014.11.008.
Siedlecka-Lamch O, Szymoniak S. 2023. Blockchain technology in medical data processing: a
study on its applications and potential benefits. In: Kaindl H, Mannion M, Maciaszek LA, eds.
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software
Engineering, ENASE 2023, April 24-25, 2023. Prague, Czech Republic: SCITEPRESS, 664–671.
Singh P, Elmi Z, Lau Y, Borowska-Stefanska M, Wisniewski S, Dulebenets MA. 2022.
Blockchain and AI technology convergence: applications in transportation systems. Vehicular
Communications 38(12):100521 DOI 10.1016/j.vehcom.2022.100521.
Singh SK, Rathore S, Park JH. 2020. BlockIoTIntelligence: a blockchain-enabled intelligent IoT
architecture with artificial intelligence. Future Generation Computer Systems 110(2):721–743
DOI 10.1016/j.future.2019.09.002.
Singh S, Singh N. 2016. Blockchain: Future of financial and cyber security. In: 2016 2nd
International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I). 463–467.
Singh BP, Tripathi AK. 2019. Blockchain technology and intellectual property rights. India:
NISCAIR-CSIR. Available at https://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/49934/1/JIPR%
2024%281-2%29%2041-44.pdf.
Srivastava PR, Zhang ZJ, Eachempati P. 2023. Blockchain technology and its applications in
agriculture and supply chain management: a retrospective overview and analysis. Enterprise
Information Systems 17(5):1 DOI 10.1080/17517575.2021.1995783.
Stančić H, Bralić V. 2021. Digital archives relying on blockchain: overcoming the limitations of
data immutability. Computers 10(8):91 DOI 10.3390/computers10080091.
Sun Y, Zhang X, Han M. 2023. Research on the application of blockchain technology in big data
auditing. In: Song A, Habib M, eds. Proceedings of the 2023 3rd International Conference on
Robotics and Control Engineering, RobCE 2023, May 12-14, 2023. Nanjing, China: ACM, 49–54.
Suratkar S, Shirole M, Bhirud S. 2020. Cryptocurrency wallet: a review. In: 2020 4th International
Conference on Computer, Communication and Signal Processing (ICCCSP). 1–7.
Taherdoost H. 2022. A critical review of blockchain acceptance models—blockchain technology
adoption frameworks and applications. Computers 11(2):24 DOI 10.3390/computers11020024.

Takemiya M, Vanieiev B. 2018. Sora identity: secure, digital identity on the blockchain. In: 2018
IEEE 42nd annual computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC). Vol. 2,
Terzi S, Ioannis S, Votis K, Tsiatsos T. 2021. A life-long learning education passport powered by&;
blockchain technology and ;verifiable digital credentials: The blockademic project. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 249–263.
Tosh DK, Shetty S, Liang X, Kamhoua CA, Kwiat KA, Njilla L. 2017. Security implications of
blockchain cloud with analysis of block withholding attack. In: 2017 17th IEEE/ACM
International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGRID). Piscataway: IEEE,
458–467.
Tsai W-T, Feng L, Zhang H, You Y, Wang L, Zhong Y. 2017. Intellectual-property blockchain-
based protection model for microfilms. In: 2017 IEEE Symposium on Service-Oriented System
Engineering (SOSE). Piscataway: IEEE, 174–178.
Tseng J-H, Liao Y-C, Chong B, Liao S-w. 2018. Governance on the drug supply chain via gcoin
blockchain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15(6):1055
DOI 10.3390/ijerph15061055.
Umucu EH. 2022. Elliptic curve cryptography in blockchain technology. SSRN 4033934
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.4033934.
Underwood S. 2016. Blockchain beyond bitcoin. Communications of the ACM 59(11):15–17
DOI 10.1145/2994581.
Veena P, Panikkar S, Nair S, Brody P. 2015. Empowering the edge-practical insights on a
decentralized internet of things. IBM Institute for Business Value 17.
Wang W, Hoang DT, Hu P, Xiong Z, Niyato D, Wang P, Wen Y, Kim DI. 2019b. A survey on
consensus mechanisms and mining strategy management in blockchain networks. IEEE Access
7:22328–22370 DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2896108.
Wang J, Wang S, Guo J, Du Y, Cheng S, Li X. 2019a. A summary of research on blockchain in the
field of intellectual property. Procedia Computer Science 147(4):191–197
DOI 10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.220.
Weber RH. 2010. Internet of things—new security and privacy challenges. Computer Law &
Security Review 26(1):23–30 DOI 10.1016/j.clsr.2009.11.008.
Whittaker Z. 2019. The sinkhole that saved the internet. Technical report.
Xing F, Peng G, Liang Z. 2022. Research on the application of blockchain technology in the
cross-border e-commerce supply chain domain. In: Streitz NA, Konomi S, eds. Distributed,
Ambient and Pervasive Interactions. Smart Living, Learning, Well-being and Health, Art and
Creativity - 10th International Conference, DAPI 2022, Held as Part of the 24th HCI
International Conference, HCII 2022, Virtual Event, June 26 - July 1, 2022, Proceedings, Part II,
volume 13326 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer, 99–109.
Xu M, Feng G, Ren Y, Zhang X. 2020. On cloud storage optimization of blockchain with a
clustering-based genetic algorithm. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7(9):8547–8558
DOI 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2993030.
Yaga D, Mell P, Roby N, Scarfone K. 2018. Blockchain technology overview. Technical Report.
Yao W, Ye J, Murimi R, Wang G. 2021. A survey on consortium blockchain consensus
mechanisms. ArXiv DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2102.12058.
Yatsykovska U, Karpinski M, Vasyltsov I, Bykovyy P. 2011. The monitoring system of dos/ddos
attacks in the global network. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on
Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems. Piscataway: IEEE, 791–794.

Yavuz E, Koç AK, çabuk UC, Dalkılıç G. 2018. Towards secure e-voting using ethereum
blockchain. In: 2018 6th International Symposium on Digital Forensic and Security (ISDFS).
Ye C, Li G, Cai H, Gu Y, Fukuda A. 2018. Analysis of security in blockchain: case study in
51%-attack detecting. In: 2018 5th International Conference on Dependable Systems and Their
Applications (DSA). 15–24.
Yin X, Yu Y, Hu B, Luo Q, Tang Z. 2022. Research on the application of blockchain technology in
education and teaching in higher vocational colleges. In: ASSE 2022: 3rd Asia Service Sciences
and Software Engineering Conference, February 24–26, 2022. Macao: ACM, 30–36.
Yuan Y, Wang F-Y. 2016. Towards blockchain-based intelligent transportation systems. In: 2016
IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). Piscataway:
IEEE, 2663–2668.
Zaghdoud N, Abdelhafidh M, Charef N, Mnaouer AB, Boujemaa H, Touati F. 2023. On the
application of blockchain technology for securing flying ad-hoc networks (FANET). In: IEEE
International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, ICBC 2023, May 1-5, 2023.
Zeng J, Yuan Y, Zhang J, Liu Y. 2019. Blockchain in smart park: application scheme design. In:
Proceedings of the 1st International Electronics Communication Conference, IECC ’19. New York:
Association for Computing Machinery, 76–83.
Zhang X, Lu S. 2022. Application research of electronic invoice system based on blockchain
technology—taking Shenzhen city as an example. In: Li A, Shi Y, Xi L, eds. 6GN for Future
Wireless Networks—5th EAI International Conference, 6GN 2022, December 17–18, 2022,
Proceedings, Part I, volume 504 of Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social
Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Cham: Springer, 320–324.
Zhang C, Wu C, Wang X. 2020b. Overview of blockchain consensus mechanism. In: Proceedings
of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Big Data Engineering. 7–12.
Zhang A, Zhong RY, Farooque M, Kang K, Venkatesh VG. 2020a. Blockchain-based life cycle
assessment: an implementation framework and system architecture. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 152(5):104512 DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104512.
Zhang J, Zhong S, Wang J, Yu X, Alfarraj O. 2021. A storage optimization scheme for blockchain
transaction databases. Computer Systems Science and Engineering 36(3):521–535
DOI 10.32604/csse.2021.014530.
Zheng Z, Xie S, Dai H-N, Chen X, Wang H. 2018b. Blockchain challenges and opportunities:
a survey. International Journal of Web and Grid Services 14(4):352–375
DOI 10.1504/IJWGS.2018.095647.
Zheng P, Zheng Z, Luo X, Chen X, Liu X. 2018a. A detailed and real-time performance
monitoring framework for blockchain systems. In: Proceedings of the 40th International
Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice. 134–143.
Zhong Y, Guo Y. 2021. Security technologies in ad-hoc networks: a survey. In: 2021 IEEE 7th
International Conference on Network Softwarization (NetSoft). Piscataway: IEEE, 423–429.
Zhou L, Wang L, Sun Y. 2018. MIStore: a blockchain-based medical insurance storage system.
Journal of Medical Systems 42(8):149 DOI 10.1007/s10916-018-0996-4.
Zhu H, Guo Y, Zhang L. 2021. An improved convolution Merkle tree-based blockchain electronic
medical record secure storage scheme. Journal of Information Security and Applications
61(11):102952 DOI 10.1016/j.jisa.2021.102952.

Peerj Cs 09 1705

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peerj Cs 09 1705

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peerj Cs 09 1705

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blockchain technology and application: an

Subjects Computer Networks and Communications, Blockchain

Background and motivation

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 2/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 3/50

Key technologies for blockchain

Packaging into data blocks

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 4/50

Merkle root: 32 bytes (Merkle root hash of

Number of transactions: 1-9 bytes (number of

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 5/50

Prev Hash Nonce

Hash0 Hash1 Hash2 Hash3

Tx2 Tx2 Tx2 Tx3

Figure 2 Transaction hash concept in Merkle tree. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705/ﬁg-2

P2P network technology

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 6/50

Distributed ledger technology

Asymmetric encryption and digital signature

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 7/50

Figure 3 Bitcoin asymmetric encryption mechanism. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705/ﬁg-3

Elliptic curve type encryption algorithm

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 8/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 9/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 10/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 11/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 12/50

Verify transaction status

User Wallet Network

Figure 4 The sequence diagram of blockchain technology consisting of wallets.

Blockchain-based algorithms for IoT security

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 13/50

Asymmetric cryptography algorithms

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 14/50

Smart contract languages

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 15/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 16/50

Consortium or federated blockchain

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 17/50

SECURITY MEASURES IN BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEMS:

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 18/50

Various kinds of attacks

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 19/50

Cracking of the cryptographic

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 20/50

Denial of Service (DoS) attack

WannaCry ransomwarecrypto-worm attack

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 21/50

Transaction malleability attack

Routing partition attack

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 22/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 23/50

Flawed key generation

Attacks on hot block

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 24/50

Dong et al. (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1705 25/50

Blockchain volume issues

INTRODUCTION TO FUTURE RESEARCH METHODS AND

Characteristics of beneficial systems