See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339250474

Blockchain Frameworks

Chapter · February 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-38677-1_4

CITATIONS READS

5 2,528

5 authors, including:

Mohammad Tabrez Quasim Fahad Algarni

University of Bisha,Bisha, Saudi Arabia Monash University (Australia)
28 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abdullah Alharthy
King Abdulaziz University
1 PUBLICATION   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Tabrez Quasim on 14 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Blockchain Frameworks

Mohammad Tabrez Quasim, Mohammad Ayoub Khan, Fahad Algarni,

Abdullah Alharthy and Goram Mufareh M. Alshmrani

Abstract The blockchain is fascinating in many areas such as finance, healthcare,

governance, security and many more. The underlying principle of the blockchain is
based on distributed ledgers that solves many existing problems. Every blockchain
framework has a different objective and application. There are many important cri-
teria that must be considered during the selection of blockchain framework. Every
blockchain framework and development platform has different pros and cons. In
this chapter we present some of the leading enterprise frameworks for implementing
blockchain solution. The enterprise support, pros and cons and transaction model are
few important parameters to select the framework. In this chapter we present detailed
investigation on blockchain frameworks that are publicly available.

Keywords Blockchain · PoW · POI · Evaluation framework · Ethereum ·

Bitcoin · Corda · IOTA · EOS · XRP · Waves · Quorum · NEM · XEM

1 Introduction

The blockchain provides secure computing without involving a central authority

in an open network system [1–4]. The companies all around the world are using
blockchain technology to enhance the business capacity and Return-on-Investments
(ROI). The blockchain has potential to minimize operating cost along with different
fraud activities using proof-of-work (PoW). Enterprises are increasingly investing in

M. T. Quasim (B) · M. A. Khan · F. Algarni · A. Alharthy · G. M. M. Alshmrani

College of Computing and Information Technology, University of Bisha, Bisha, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: mtabrez@ub.edu.sa; ayoub.khan@ieee.org
M. A. Khan
e-mail: ayoub.khan@ieee.org
F. Algarni
e-mail: fahad.alqarni@ub.edu.sa
G. M. M. Alshmrani
e-mail: gmoubark@ub.edu.sa

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 75

M. A. Khan et al. (eds.), Decentralised Internet of Things, Studies in Big Data 71,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38677-1_4
76 M. T. Quasim et al.

Fig. 1 Blockchain computational complexity

blockchain technology for extremely secure and transparent mechanism for tracking
ownership of assets across the boundaries.

Definition The blockchain framework can be defined as software solutions that

simplifies the development and deployment of blockchain applications with little
customization.

The blockchain frameworks contains infrastructure and libraries to develop the

application. The network infrastructure or simply infrastructure consist of nodes
and software running on them. The node can be physical machine, virtual machine
or containers. The software providing features and capability such as user identity,
transaction details, consensus protocol, also controls the identity management for
blockchains. The application is composed of the code running inside the infrastruc-
ture known as smart contract in general. The client application interacts with the
infrastructure. The latter serves as the interface or access point from external world.
A good blockchain framework shall allow application development outside the actual
deployment of the network. We don’t need to deploy the network before developing
the application because, if our application can run on a small network, it should run
as well in a bigger infrastructure or actual deployment environment.
The selection of an enterprise blockchain framework is a little tricky affair, since
any particular framework don’t provide all the features. The main challenges in any
blockchain framework are processing power, storage and scalability as shown in
Fig. 1. The stakeholders must be very careful about variety of factors before, during,
and after implementation of blockchain in the enterprise.
There are many important criteria that must be considered during the selection of
blockchain framework. We present some of the criteria for selection of blockchain
framework as shown in Table 1.
Different blockchain frameworks and development platforms has different pros
and cons. In next section we will present some of the leading enterprise frameworks
for implementing blockchain solutions.

2 Ethereum

Ethereum is open source framework where we can create virtually any decentralised
online services on the DApps that operate on the basis of smart contracts. The concept
Blockchain Frameworks 77

Table 1 Selection criteria for

Criteria Description
blockchain framework
License Type of licensing viz free or paid and
features
Support model Framework support, longevity, popularity
Activity Upgrade support for framework
Roadmap Vision and roadmap of the framework
Ease of use large-scale adoption and intuitive
Reliable backing Open source community or corporate
community

of Ethereum was proposed by Vitalik Buterin in 2013, but it was only possible to
implement it in 2015 [5–7]. The Ethereum [1, 8, 9] is based on four important key
components as below:

2.1 Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)

The EVM is a quasi-Turing machine that has EMV bytecode [1]. The EVM is quasi
turning machine because computations performed by the machine are bound by
gas, that limits the number of computations. This is the also called “full Turing
environment” in which we can execute DApps written in one of several popular
programming languages. In other words, instead of creating a separate framework for
each language or application, they all work on the same blockchain. This makes
the Dapps development process efficient and simple.

2.2 Smart Contracts

Smart contract is executed automatically subject to certain conditions specified in the

executable code as shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, we can say that smart contract is an
executable program [4]. The smart contract is a computer algorithm for the exchange
of cryptocurrency, real estate, gold or other value without the participation of third
parties or guarantors.

2.3 Decentralised Applications (DApps)

Decentralised applications that use smart contracts for various purposes: putting
digital signatures, forecasting stock markets, guaranteeing the transfer of valuables,
and the like. More than half of live DApps –Ethereum applications [10].
78 M. T. Quasim et al.

Fig. 2 Smart contract execution

2.4 Performance

There are many parameters to evaluate the performance of the framework. The
Ethereum uses Merkle trees to optimize transactional hashing and increase potential
for scalability. The Ethereum is the most popular framework as 80% of the project
are being developed in Ethereum [11–13]. The success of Ethereum is due to the fact
that this is the first platform on which full-fledged smart contracts are implemented.
Also, Ethereum is relatively quick and easy to launch Initial Coin Offering (ICO).
We summarise some of the important pros and cons of Ethereum in Table 2.

3 Hyperledger

The Hyperledger is supported by Linux Foundation and IBM that is an open

source collaborative effort which is particularly useful for advancing cross-industry
blockchain technologies [14–16]. Hyperledger is a global initiative that includes

Table 2 Pros and cons of ethereum

Pros Cons
Leverages blockchain Sluggish transaction speed
High capitalization: $9.7 billion; Supported Centralization—hacking of the DAO showed
by big players like IBM, Microsoft, JPorgan that the word of developers is more important
Chase, Amazon and others; than community voting
Strong team First-mover disadvantage
Proven reliability Market hoaxes
Per day traffic PoS update
Blockchain Frameworks 79

Table 3 Components of
Component Description
hyperledger
Ledger An append-only distributed ledger
Consensus algorithm A consensus algorithm for agreeing to
changes in the ledger
Privacy Privacy of transactions through
permissioned access
Smart contracts Smart contracts to process transaction
requests

industry leaders from banking, finance, manufacturing, supply chain, Internet of

Things, and other technology. The Hyperledger project has started in 2015 and more
than 100 companies participate in Hyperledger [15, 16]. The Hyperledger has very
strong industry backup by many financial institutions such as JP Morgan, London
Stock Exchange (LSE), Deutsche Boerse and CME, SWIFT, Moscow Exchange,
ABN AMRO, BNP Paribas, Wells Fargo and hundreds of other companies also
joined the Linux Foundation project. From IT giants, the Hyperledger has technical
backup by Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, Fujitsu and Intel [17–19].

3.1 Components of Hyperledger Frameworks

Hyperledger business blockchain frameworks are used to build enterprise

blockchains. The components shown in Table 3 are essential to build Hyperledger
framework.

3.2 Example of Hyperledge Framework

There are many frameworks available for Hyperledger as summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 Examples of hyperledger framework

Framework Contributor Domain Consensus Development
algorithm environment
Fabric IBM Smart contracts BFT Java, JavaScript
Sawtooth Intel tokenize logistics and PoET Any language
sales chains
Burrow Monax Smart contract PoET Solidity
Iroha Soramitsu etc. Mobile applications YAC C++
Indy Sovrin Digital identities RBFT Python, Java, C#,
node.js
80 M. T. Quasim et al.

Table 5 Pros and cons of

Pros Cons
hyperledge framework
Modular architecture Complex fabric architecture
Hybrid model Network fault tolerance
Optimized performance and Lack of proven use cases
scalability
SQL-like query capability Inadequately skilled
programmers
Permission membership: Network fault tolerance

Below are few pros and cons of the Hyperledger framework as shown in Table 5.

4 Bitcoin

The Bitcoin is the first and most prominent cryptocurrency in the financial world. A
group of people under the common alias Satoshi Nakamoto form the Bitcoin in year
2009 [20–24]. The Bitcoin blockchain is the progenitor of a significant part of the
first twenty of cryptocurrencies: Ethereum, Litecoin, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin
SV and others [25–27]. This is also very interesting to know that to date nobody
knows who is the owner of the company, for example if we do search for domain
details on who is lookup then we will get below information as shown in Fig. 3.
The size of blockchain is also increasing day by day as shown in Fig. 4.
The Bitcoin has the largest capitalization and subscription. Some important pros
and cons of Bitcoin have been listed in Table 6.

5 Corda

Corda is a blockchain platform primarily developed for legal contracts and other
shared data between mutually trusting organizations, however, this makes it possible
for a diverse range of applications to interoperate on a single network [28, 29]. The
Corda is platform operate within the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Corda was estab-
lished by the R3 consortium (R3CEV LLC) for recording, monitoring and synchro-
nizing financial agreements between regulated financial institutions. The consensus
algorithm uses “notarized” nodes to verify and sign contracts. Transaction informa-
tion is not broadcast to all network nodes i.e. restricted. The information is made
available only to nodes that have confirmed legitimate interests in those assets that
participate in the transaction. If the transaction is between A and B, then only the
nodes of these two structures will receive information.
The Corda’s has great potential to scale as compared to other frameworks. We
present some of the important pros and cons of Cordra in Table 7 [29].
Blockchain Frameworks 81

Domain Name: BITCOIN.ORG

Registry Domain ID: D153621148-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com
Registrar URL: http://www.namecheap.com
Updated Date: 2018-09-25T15:44:30Z
Creation Date: 2008-08-18T13:19:55Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2021-08-18T13:19:55Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 1068

Registrar Abuse Contact Email:

Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.6613102107
Reseller:
Do-
main Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransf
erProhibited
Registrant Organization: WhoisGuard, Inc.
Registrant State/Province: Panama
Registrant Country: PA
Name Server: DNS1.REGISTRAR-SERVERS.COM
Name Server: DNS2.REGISTRAR-SERVERS.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form https://www.ican
n.org/wicf/)

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.o

rg/epp

Fig. 3 WHOIS domain information

Fig. 4 Blockchain size of bitcoin [4]

82 M. T. Quasim et al.

Table 6 Pros and cons of

Pros Cons
BITCOIN
Payment freedom Risk and volatility
Highly capitalised Slow speed (7 transaction/sec)
Control and security Blockchain size—242.2 GB
High volume trading Lack of awareness & understanding
Low commission fee No full-fledged smart contracts

Table 7 Pros and cons of corda

Pros Cons
The ability to search for consensus for The use of oracles (people) to confirm the
individual contracts and agreements; authenticity of documents and information
reduces the legitimacy of these checks
Restricted access Corda framework customized to the financial
sector
Built on industry-standard tool R3 Limited user only in financial sector

6 EOS

EOS blockchain platform is built for both public and private use cases. The EOS is
well suited for business needs across industries which requires role-based security
permissions, industry-leading speeds and secure application processing [30]. Almost
all the decentralised applications can be launched using EOS. The EOS managed to
collect 465 million dollars during the ICO [30].
The investor has the right in the income, property, copyrights, reputation in the
proportion of investment or token acquired. The holder of tokens may get access to
DApps developed under the new project, storage access, received divided etc. like a
stake holder in any company. We present some important pros and cons of EOS in
Table 8.

Table 8 Pros and cons of EOS

Pros Cons
Throughput—1200 operations per second Project in development-there is no even a GUI
wallet
High potentials for scaling due to delegated Crowdfunding conditions may frighten
proof-of-stake consensus algorithm DApps developers;
Innovative crowdfunding model EOS team is in no hurry to report to investors
Convenient DApps development toolkit The most criticized cryptocurrency of the top
ten
Blockchain Frameworks 83

7 IOTA

This is new transaction settlement for the Internet of Things applications. It intro-
duced a new way to perform transaction through a peer to peer system, called a
tangle. The IOTA framework was released in 2016 and has a market capital more
than $10 billion [31–33]. The IoT devices perform PoW. The IOTA doesn’t support
smart contracts [34, 35].
Unlike the other frameworks such as Ethereum, Bitcoin, the IoTA has no tra-
ditional blockchain structure [36]. The IOTA uses the Tangle algorithm in which
transaction will be confirm from two other users.
The tangle is based on Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as shown in Fig. 5. The
tangle data structure moves in one direction without looping back onto itself.
The time elapse from left to right in this graph. Each circle represents a transaction
issued by a device on the network. In blockchain, there are two distinct types of
participants in the system, those who issue transactions, and those who approve
transactions, however, in the tangle, every device or node works to maintain the
ledger. Every node is also a kind of miner. When a node wants to transfer some
value, then it must validate two previous transactions, which is shown by the arrows
in the Fig. 5. The validation of transaction requires a small amount PoW in order to
secure the network. Since, the node are miners as well therefore no transaction fees
is applicable. We discuss some of important pros and cons of IoTA are discuss in
Table 9.

Fig. 5 Tangle as direct acrylic graph

Table 9 Pros and cons of

Pros Cons
IoTA
Micro-payments Ternary based logic
Scalability There are hidden areas in the code
Lightweight Framework functions are limited to IoT
Quantum-secure No support of smart contracts
84 M. T. Quasim et al.

Table 10 Pros and cons of XRP

Pros Cons
Capacity—1000 operations per second; Ripple Labs holds 65% of platform tokens;
Transaction fee—from 0.00001 XRP Practice has shown that the project team can block
user tokens if they don’t like it
Support for large banks Complex architecture
Ability to cancel transactions Less scalable

8 Ripple (XRP)

The XRP is formerly known as OpenCoin Ripple [35]. The OpenCoin is built for pay-
ment and exchange network known as RippleNet which is on the top of a distributed
ledger database called as XRP Ledger. The objective of XRP is to connect banks,
payment providers and digital asset exchanges, enabling faster and cost-efficient
global payments. The XRP was first idealized in 2004 by Ryan Fugger, who devel-
oped the first prototype of Ripple known as RipplePay in 2005 [35]. In 2012, Jed
McCaleb and Chris Larsen et al. founded the US-based technology company Open-
Coin. The XRP Ledger is not based on a PoW consensus algorithm, instead, it uses a
customised algorithm known as the Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm (RPCA).
The XRP was ranked second in terms of capitalization, displacing Ethereum from
$ 9.5 billion to $12.3 billion as of December 10, 2018. This happened against the
background of another sinking of the market, which indicates a great confidence of
investors and users to the Ripple blockchain. In Table 10, we present some important
pros and cons of Ripple framework [35].

9 Waves

Waves blockchain framework is an open, decentralised blockchain platform where

anyone can build application along with new cryptocurrency. The Waves Platform
was founded by Sasha Ivanov, a Russian physicist. The unique feature of Waves is to
create an infrastructure that makes it easy for application developers to create all kinds
of blockchain-based applications. The Waves is a software framework consists of
different tools and utilities to help developers build applications. In order to run those
applications, users pay fees using the WAVES tokens. Unlike Bitcoin, Waves platform
has decentralised exchange (DEX). The DEX allows users to trade bitcoin, WAVES
or any token issued on the Waves platform directly on a peer-to-peer level. The DEX
has fast transactions, low fees and secure settlements on the blockchain. If we want
to issue our own crypto coin then you need minimum one Wave token. Anyone can
buy WAVES token with bitcoin on several cryptocurrency exchanges such as Bittrex,
Tidex, and YoBit. One of the important features which distinguish WAVES with other
Blockchain Frameworks 85

Table 11 Pros and cons of

Pros Cons
WAVES
Ideal for crowdfunding Incomprehensible legal status of
project on waves
Fiat transfers Support issue
Highly accessible Exchange is yet not mature
Fast, low-cost and scalable Performance issue

frameworks is direct exchange between fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies and real-

world commodities through the decentralised exchange. The WAVES framework
is implemented using Python, that makes it easy for developers to implement and
integrate new applications using APIs through JSON-RPC, REST etc. We have listed
some of the Pros and Cons of Waves are discuss in Table 11.

10 Quorum

The Quorum was developed by JP Morgan to address key issues in the financial
industry through a distribution registry and smart contract (Ethereum) capabilities.
The Quorum has generated institutional transaction volumes. The Quorum is able to
restrict access to transaction history with transparency of the system.
Quorum uses Raft/Istanbul BFT consensus algorithms. When a new transaction
appears then it is routed to main node that directs further to other nodes and request-
ing confirmation of authenticity without any communication. Quorum has focus on
enterprise, permissioned blockchain to cover all the use cases of financial sector.
Quorum is built on Ethereum. The components of Quorum are shown in Fig. 6.
Like every framework the Quorum has also some pros and cons as shown in
Table 12.

11 NEM (XEM)

The (New Economy Movement) NEM platform is designed from scratch to gain
high scalability and speed [35]. The NEM is a permissioned private blockchain with
a revolutionary consensus mechanism called Proof-of-Concept (POI). The POI is the
mechanism that is used to determine which network participants are more important,
thereby, eligible to add a block to the blockchain. The NEM uses ‘harvesting’ process
to determine the important participant. The accounts with a higher importance score
will have a higher probability of being chosen to harvest a block. To become eligible
the participant must hold at least 10,000 vested XEM.
86 M. T. Quasim et al.

Fig. 6 Quorum architecture

Table 12 Pros and cons of

Pros Cons
quorum
High performance Limited use of capabilities of
the framework
Enhanced transaction and Transactions are confirmed
contract privacy by several “selected” nodes
Voting-based consensus Messaging overhead
mechanisms
Better performance Limited block size
permissioned blockchain Anonymity

The architectural design of NEM is open and scalable. The NEM Platform has
focus on trading, banking and charity. The NEM uses a different consensus algorithm
called Proof-of-Importance (PoI) [35].
The low transaction confirmation fee, energy consumption and performance are
major advantages of NEM. The NEM provides RESTful JSON API interface for
application development [35]. We present some of the pros and cons of NEM in
Table 13.

12 Conclusion

The blockchain technology has gained considerable popularity in the last couple
of years. The blockchain framework provides an infrastructure and environment
Blockchain Frameworks 87

Table 13 Pros and cons of

Pros Cons
NEM [35]
Good capacity Centralisation POI
Low commission Weak debut
Less energy consumption Low NEM consumer
Anti-counterfeiting Less literature

to develop any blockchain application. We presented many popular frameworks of

blockchain technology; some frameworks solve problems related to specific areas
such as IoT, Smart contract, cryptocurrency and so on. We discussed basic fea-
tures, components, characteristics, pros and cons of Ethereum, Hyperledger, Bitcoin,
Corda, EOSIOTA, XRP, Waves, Quorum, and NEM. The enterprise support, pros and
cons and transaction are few important parameters to select the framework. However,
this is a challenging task to select the blockchain framework due to volatility in the
customer choice and market dynamics.

References

1. Raikwar, M., Mazumdar, S., Ruj, S., Sen Gupta, S., Chattopadhyay, A., Lam, K.: A blockchain
framework for insurance processes. In: 2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New Tech-
nologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), pp. 1–4. Paris (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ntms.
2018.8328731
2. Puthal, D., Malik, N., Mohanty, S.P., Kougianos, E., Yang, C.: The blockchain as a decentralized
security framework [Future Directions]. IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag. 7(2), 18–21 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1109/mce.2017.2776459
3. Xu, Y., Wu, M., Lv, Y., Zhai, S.: Research on application of block chain in distributed
energy transaction. In: 7th IEEE 3rd Information Technology and Mechatronics Engineer-
ing Conference (ITOEC), pp. 957–960. Chongqing (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/itoec.2017.
8122495
4. Blockchain. https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all. Accessed 29
Sep 2019
5. Pinna, A., Ibba, S., Baralla, G., Tonelli, R., Marchesi, M.: A massive analysis of ethereum smart
contracts empirical study and code metrics. IEEE Access 7, 78194–78213 (2019). https://doi.
org/10.1109/access.2019.2921936
6. Luo, X., Cai, W., Wang, Z., Li, X., Victor Leung, C.M.: A payment channel based hybrid
decentralized ethereum token exchange. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain
and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp. 48–49. Seoul, Korea (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/bloc.
2019.8751454
7. di Angelo, M., Salzer, G.: A survey of tools for analysing ethereum smart contracts. In:
2019 IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures
(DAPPCON), pp. 69–78. Newark, CA, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/dappcon.2019.
00018
8. Augusto, L., Costa, R., Ferreira, J., Jardim-Gonçalves, R.: An application of ethereum smart
contracts and IoT to logistics. In: 2019 International Young Engineers Forum (YEF-ECE),
pp. 1–7. Costa da Caparica, Portugal (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/yef-ece.2019.8740823
88 M. T. Quasim et al.

9. Aung, Y.N., Tantidham, T.: Review of ethereum: smart home case study. In: 2017 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Information Technology (INCIT), pp. 1–4. Nakhonpathom (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1109/incit.2017.8257877
10. Pierro, G.A., Rocha, H.: The influence factors on ethereum transaction fees. In: 2019
IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for
Blockchain (WETSEB), pp. 24–31. Montreal, QC, Canada (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/
wetseb.2019.00010
11. Tantidham, T., Aung, Y.N.: Emergency service for smart home System using ethereum
blockchain: system and architecture. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive
Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), pp. 888–893. Kyoto, Japan
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/percomw.2019.8730816
12. Harris, C.G.: The risks and challenges of implementing ethereum smart contracts. In: 2019
IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp. 104–107. Seoul,
Korea (South) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/bloc.2019.8751493
13. Dika, A., Nowostawski, M.: Security vulnerabilities in ethereum smart contracts. 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), pp. 955–962. Halifax, NS, Canada (2018). https://doi.org/
10.1109/cybermatics_2018.2018.00182
14. Attia, O., Khoufi, I., Laouiti, A., Adjih, C.: An Iot-blockchain architecture based on hyperledger
framework for healthcare monitoring application. In: 2019 10th IFIP International Conference
on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), pp. 1–5. CANARY ISLANDS, Spain
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ntms.2019.8763849
15. Goranović, A., Meisel, M., Wilker, S., Sauter, T.: Hyperledger fabric smart grid communication
testbed on raspberry PI ARM architecture. In: 2019 15th IEEE International Workshop on
Factory Communication Systems (WFCS), pp. 1–4. Sundsvall, Sweden (2019). https://doi.
org/10.1109/wfcs.2019.8758000
16. Nguyen, T.S.L., Jourjon, G., Potop-Butucaru, M., Thai, K.L.: Impact of network delays on
hyperledger fabric. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2019—IEEE Conference on Computer Communica-
tions Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), pp. 222–227. Paris, France, (2019)
17. Ampel, B., Patton, M., Chen, H.: Performance modeling of hyperledger sawtooth
blockchain. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics
(ISI), pp. 59–61. Shenzhen, China (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/isi.2019.8823238
18. Thakkar, P., Nathan, S., Viswanathan, B. Performance benchmarking and optimizing hyper-
ledger fabric blockchain platform. In: IEEE 26th International Symposium on Modeling, Anal-
ysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS), pp. 264–276.
Milwaukee, WI (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/mascots.2018.00034
19. Ampel, B., Patton, M., Chen, H.: Performance modeling of hyperledger sawtooth blockchain.
In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI), pp. 59–
61. Shenzhen, China (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/isi.2019.8823238
20. Lin, Y., Wu, P., Hsu, C., Tu, I., Liao, S.: An evaluation of bitcoin address classification based on
transaction history summarization. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and
Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp. 302–310. Seoul, Korea (South) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/
bloc.2019.8751410
21. Qin, K., Hadass, H., Gervais, A., Reardon, J.: Applying private information retrieval to
lightweight bitcoin clients. In: Crypto Valley Conference on Blockchain Technology (CVCBT),
pp. 60–72. Rotkreuz, Switzerland (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/cvcbt.2019.00012
22. Grundmann, M., Leinweber, M., Hartenstein, H.: Banklaves: concept for a trustworthy decen-
tralized payment service for bitcoin. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain
and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp. 268–276. Seoul, Korea (South (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/
bloc.2019.8751394
23. Mittal, A., Dhiman, V., Singh, A., Prakash, C.: Short-term bitcoin price fluctuation prediction
using social media and web search data. In: 2019 Twelfth International Conference on Con-
temporary Computing (IC3), pp. 1–6. Noida, India (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ic3.2019.
8844899
 Blockchain Frameworks 89

24. Biryukov, A., Tikhomirov, S.: Transaction clustering using network traffic analysis for bitcoin
and derived blockchains. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2019—IEEE Conference on Computer Com-
munications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), pp. 204–209. Paris, France (2019). https://
doi.org/10.1109/infcomw.2019.8845213
25. Chadha, G.K., Singh, A.: Bitcoin block-chain mining. In: 2019 9th International Conference
on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), pp. 152–157. Noida, India
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/confluence.2019.8776961
26. Erfani, S., Ahmadi, M.: Bitcoin security reference model: an implementation platform. In: 2019
International Symposium on Signals, Circuits and Systems (ISSCS), pp. 1–5. Iasi, Romania
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/isscs.2019.8801796
27. Wu, Y., Luo, A., Xu, D.: Forensic analysis of bitcoin transactions. In: 2019 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI), pp. 167–169. Shenzhen China
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/isi.2019.8823498
28. R3 Corda. https://docs.corda.net/releases/release-M0.1/data-model.html. Accessed 11 Sep
2019
29. Richard Gendal Brown. The corda platform: an introduction (2018). https://www.corda.net/
content/corda-platform-whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep 2019
30. Sing, N.: Top 7 benefits of EOS blockchain (2018). https://101blockchains.com/top-7-benefits-
of-eos-blockchain/. Accessed 1 Sep 2019
31. Lamtzidis, O., Gialelis, J.: An IOTA based distributed sensor node system. In: 2018 IEEE
Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), pp. 1–6. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (2018). https://
doi.org/10.1109/glocomw.2018.8644153
32. Dasalukunte, D., Mehmood, S., Öwall, V.: Complexity analysis of IOTA filter architectures in
faster-than-Nyquist multicarrier systems. In: 2011 NORCHIP, pp. 1–4. Lund (2011). https://
doi.org/10.1109/norchp.2011.6126704
33. Shabandri, B., Maheshwari, P.: Enhancing IoT security and privacy using distributed ledgers
with IOTA and the tangle. In: 2019 6th International Conference on Signal Processing and
Integrated Networks (SPIN), pp. 1069–1075. Noida, India (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/
spin.2019.8711591
34. Glencross, M., Howard, T., Pettifer, S.: Iota: an approach to physically-based modelling in
virtual environments. In: Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2001, pp. 287–288. Yokohama,
Japan (2001). https://doi.org/10.1109/vr.2001.913800
35. Tarasenko, E.: Best blockchain frameworks you should know about. https://merehead.com/
blog/blockchain-frameworks-you-should-know-about/ Accessed 2 July 2019
36. Andriopoulou, F., Orphanoudakis, T., Dagiuklas, T.: IoTA: IoT automated SIP-based emer-
gency call triggering system for general eHealth purposes. In: 2017 IEEE 13th International
Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob),
pp. 362–369. Rome (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/wimob.2017.8115830

View publication stats