pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.07099 · v1 · pith:K6U3LFMFnew · submitted 2019-07-16 · 💻 cs.CR

Blockchain Mutability: Challenges and Proposed Solutions

Eugenia Politou , Fran Casino , Efthimios Alepis , Constantinos Patsakis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 20:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR
keywords blockchainmutabilityGDPRright to be forgottendata redactioncryptographic techniquesimmutabilityregulatory compliance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Various techniques have been proposed to enable selective mutability in blockchains to meet GDPR data erasure rules while aiming to retain security.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews state-of-the-art approaches, technical workarounds, and cryptographic techniques developed to introduce controlled editing into blockchains. Its aim is to address the conflict between traditional blockchain immutability and the GDPR right to be forgotten, which requires the ability to redact or delete data on request. A reader would care because successful methods could allow blockchains to operate in regulated environments without violating privacy laws. The review covers both permissioned and permissionless settings and evaluates the potentials along with constraints and limitations of each approach.

Core claim

This paper surveys multiple methods and techniques for mutable blockchains that have been put forward to satisfy regulatory erasing requirements while preserving blockchains' security, and it discusses their potentials, constraints, and limitations when applied to either permissioned or permissionless blockchains.

What carries the argument

The central mechanisms reviewed are cryptographic primitives and protocol modifications, such as redactable signatures and chameleon-based constructions, that permit targeted content changes or deletions in a blockchain while attempting to keep hash-chain integrity and consensus properties intact.

Load-bearing premise

The reviewed approaches can be applied in practice to permissioned or permissionless blockchains without undermining their security properties.

What would settle it

A working implementation of one of the surveyed mutable techniques that either prevents required data redactions or allows unauthorized tampering would show the methods do not achieve their stated goals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.07099 by Constantinos Patsakis, Efthimios Alepis, Eugenia Politou, Fran Casino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Blockchain categorisation. C. Privacy and transparency By design, blockchains are based on the principle of com￾plete transparency according to which transactions, even if they hashed or encrypted, are visible to all participating nodes so that they can be validated [24]. Therefore, since the content of every transaction is exposed to every node on the network, transactional privacy in blockchains is hard … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An overview of solutions for balancing immutability and the Right to be Forgotten. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Blockchain's evolution during the past decade is astonishing: from bitcoin to over 2.000 altcoins, and from decentralised electronic payments to transactions programmable by smart contracts and complex tokens governed by decentralised organisations. While the new generation of blockchain applications is still evolving, blockchain's technical characteristics are also advancing. Yet, immutability, a hitherto indisputable property according to which blockchain data cannot be edited nor deleted, remains the cornerstone of blockchain's security. Nevertheless, blockchain's immutability is being called into question lately in the light of the new erasing requirements imposed by the GDPR's ``\textit{Right to be Forgotten (RtbF)}'' provision. As the RtbF obliges blockchain data to be editable in order restricted content redactions, modifications or deletions to be applied when requested, blockchains compliance with the regulation is indeed challenging, if not impracticable. Towards resolving this contradiction, various methods and techniques for mutable blockchains have been proposed in an effort to satisfy regulatory erasing requirements while preserving blockchains' security. To this end, this work aims to provide a comprehensive review on the state-of-the-art research approaches, technical workarounds and advanced cryptographic techniques that have been put forward to resolve this conflict and to discuss their potentials, constraints and limitations when applied in the wild to either permissioned or permissionless blockchains.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a literature review surveying state-of-the-art approaches, technical workarounds, and cryptographic techniques proposed to enable mutability in blockchains (redactions, modifications, or deletions) in order to satisfy the GDPR Right to be Forgotten (RtbF) while attempting to retain security properties. It discusses the potentials, constraints, and limitations of these methods when applied to permissioned or permissionless blockchains.

Significance. If the survey is accurate and reasonably comprehensive, it addresses a practically relevant tension between blockchain immutability and regulatory requirements. Its value lies in compiling and contextualizing existing proposals rather than advancing new technical results; this can serve as a reference point for researchers working at the intersection of distributed ledgers and data-protection law.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the figure '2.000' should be rendered as '2,000' or 'over 2000' for standard numeric formatting.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: LaTeX markup such as ``textit{Right to be Forgotten (RtbF)}'' appears in the text and should be cleaned for the published version.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our survey and for recommending minor revision. The provided summary correctly captures the manuscript's focus on techniques for enabling limited mutability in blockchains to address GDPR Right to be Forgotten requirements while preserving security properties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; literature review only

full rationale

The paper is a survey that compiles and discusses existing external proposals for mutable blockchains to address GDPR RtbF requirements. It advances no original derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or technical constructions whose validity would depend on self-referential steps. All reviewed techniques are attributed to prior literature, and the contribution is descriptive (potentials, constraints, limitations) rather than a chain of claims that reduces to its own inputs. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a survey paper with no new mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or postulated entities; it reviews existing work on blockchain mutability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5776 in / 942 out tokens · 18831 ms · 2026-05-24T20:48:59.211894+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 126 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    New study shows 43 blockchain solutions implemented had zero percent success rate,

    Bitcoin Exchange Guide News Team, “New study shows 43 blockchain solutions implemented had zero percent success rate,” https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/new-usaid-study-shows- 43-blockchain-solutions-implemented-had-no-success-rate/, Bitcoin Exchange Guide News Team, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Blockchain identity: Cambridge Analytica, but on the blockchain,

    D. Gerard, “Blockchain identity: Cambridge Analytica, but on the blockchain,” https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/03/22/ blockchain-identity-cambridge-analytica-but-on-the-blockchain/, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future,

    K. Stinchcombe, “Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future,” https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ decentralized-and-trustless-crypto-paradise-is-actually-a-medieval- hellhole-c1ca122efdec, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    The truth about blockchain,

    K. R. Lakhani and M. Iansiti, “The truth about blockchain,” Harvard Business Review. Harvard University. Retrieved , pp. 01–17, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Swan, Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy

    M. Swan, Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Blockchain meets smart health: Towards next generation healthcare services,

    T. K. Dasaklis, F. Casino, and C. Patsakis, “Blockchain meets smart health: Towards next generation healthcare services,” in 2018 9th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), 2018, pp. 1–8

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey,

    Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H.-N. Dai, and H. Wang, “Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey,” Work Pap.–2016, 2016. 11

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    What is blockchain? The complete guide,

    L. Mearian, “What is blockchain? The complete guide,” https://www.computerworld.com/article/3191077/what-is-blockchain- the-complete-guide.html, 2019

    work page arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Bitcoin as digital gold,

    “Bitcoin as digital gold,” https://www.luno.com/learn/en/article/bitcoin- as-digital-gold, The Luno Learning Portal, 2018

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Ethereum will be the backbone of the new internet,

    J. M. Duffy, “Ethereum will be the backbone of the new internet,” https://medium.com/loom-network/ethereum-will-be-the-backbone- of-the-new-internet-88718e08124f, 2018

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,

    S. Nakamoto et al., “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” 2008

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: current status, classification and open issues,

    F. Casino, T. K. Dasaklis, and C. Patsakis, “A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: current status, classification and open issues,” Telematics and Informatics, 2018

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Blockchain and iot integration: A systematic survey,

    A. Panarello, N. Tapas, G. Merlino, F. Longo, and A. Puliafito, “Blockchain and iot integration: A systematic survey,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 8, p. 2575, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust–an exploration of the dark (er) side,

    S. Marsh and M. R. Dibben, “Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust–an exploration of the dark (er) side,” in International Conference on Trust Management. Springer, 2005, pp. 17–33

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parlia- ment and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), Official Journal of the European Union, L 119 (4 May 2016...

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Social media alternatives series, ep. 1: What you need to know,

    “Social media alternatives series, ep. 1: What you need to know,” https://www.fliphodl.com/social-media-alternatives-series-ep- 1-what-you-need-to-know/, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Decentralization: The future of online social networking,

    C.-m. A. Yeung, I. Liccardi, K. Lu, O. Seneviratne, and T. Berners- Lee, “Decentralization: The future of online social networking,” in W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking Position Papers , vol. 2, 2009, pp. 2–7

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    Dis- tributed ledger technologies/blockchain: Challenges, opportunities and the prospects for standards,

    A. Deshpande, K. Stewart, L. Lepetit, and S. Gunashekar, “Dis- tributed ledger technologies/blockchain: Challenges, opportunities and the prospects for standards,” Overview report The British Standards Institution (BSI), 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    A review of distributed ledger technologies,

    N. El Ioini and C. Pahl, “A review of distributed ledger technologies,” in OTM Confederated International Conferences” On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” . Springer, 2018, pp. 277–288

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    How to time-stamp a digital docu- ment,

    S. Haber and W. S. Stornetta, “How to time-stamp a digital docu- ment,” in Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptography . Springer, 1990, pp. 437–455

    work page 1990

  21. [21]

    Cypherpunks and the rise of cryptocurrencies,

    S. Falkon, “Cypherpunks and the rise of cryptocurrencies,” https: //medium.com/swlh/cypherpunks-and-the-rise-of-cryptocurrencies- 899011538907, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    The untold history of bitcoin: Enter the cypher- punks,

    P. Basson, “The untold history of bitcoin: Enter the cypher- punks,” https://medium.com/swlh/the-untold-history-of-bitcoin-enter- the-cypherpunks-f764dee962a1, 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    How to make a mint: The cryp- tography of anonymous electronic cash,

    L. Law, S. Sabett, and J. Solinas, “How to make a mint: The cryp- tography of anonymous electronic cash,” http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm, National Secu- rity Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology, 1996

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    Blockchains and smart contracts for the internet of things,

    K. Christidis and M. Devetsikiotis, “Blockchains and smart contracts for the internet of things,” Ieee Access, vol. 4, pp. 2292–2303, 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Ending the bitcoin vs blockchain debate,

    G. Greenspan, “Ending the bitcoin vs blockchain debate,” https://www. multichain.com/blog/2015/07/bitcoin-vs-blockchain-debate/, 2015

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Cryptocurrency market capitalizations,

    CoinMarketCap, “Cryptocurrency market capitalizations,” https:// coinmarketcap.com/, 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Ethereum white paper: a next generation smart contract & decentralized application platform,

    V . Buterin, “Ethereum white paper: a next generation smart contract & decentralized application platform,” First version, 2014

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    No More Hype: Time To Separate Crypto From Blockchain Technology,

    Y . Vilner, “No More Hype: Time To Separate Crypto From Blockchain Technology,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/yoavvilner/2018/11/14/no- more-hype-time-to-separate-crypto-from-blockchain-technology/ #1d5ea73b171c, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Top ten obstacles along distributed ledgers path to adoption,

    S. Meiklejohn, “Top ten obstacles along distributed ledgers path to adoption,” IEEE Security & Privacy , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 13–19, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    How are permissioned/private blockchains immutable or better than a database?

    “How are permissioned/private blockchains immutable or better than a database?” https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/ 8zw7ce/how are permissionedprivate blockchains immutable/, 2018

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    On Public and Private Blockchains,

    V . Buterin, “On Public and Private Blockchains,” https://blog.ethereum. org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/, 2015

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    The Story of the DAO-Its History and Con- sequences,

    S. Falkon, “The Story of the DAO-Its History and Con- sequences,” https://medium.com/swlh/the-story-of-the-dao-its-history- and-consequences-71e6a8a551ee, 2017

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    The hitchhikers guide to blockchains: A trust based taxonomy,

    R. Thurimella and Y . Aahlad, “The hitchhikers guide to blockchains: A trust based taxonomy,” https://wandisco.com/assets/whitepapers/the- hitchhikers-guide-to-blockchains.pdf, 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Pros and Cons of Different Blockchain Consensus Proto- cols,

    T. Jenks, “Pros and Cons of Different Blockchain Consensus Proto- cols,” https://www.verypossible.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-different- blockchain-consensus-protocols, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Hyperledger fabric,

    “Hyperledger fabric,” https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/fabric

    work page

  36. [36]

    Using blockchain technology in your project: The ultimate guide to building a blockchain application,

    T. Jenks, “Using blockchain technology in your project: The ultimate guide to building a blockchain application,” https://www.verypossible. com/using-blockchain-technology-in-your-project, 2018

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    The blockchain immutability myth,

    G. Greenspan, “The blockchain immutability myth,” Private Blockchains.[blog] MultiChain. Available at https://www.multichain. com/blog/2017/05/blockchainimmutability-myth , 2017

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Paxos made simple,

    L. Lamport et al. , “Paxos made simple,” ACM Sigact News , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 18–25, 2001

    work page 2001

  39. [39]

    Blockchain Consensus Protocols in the Wild

    C. Cachin and M. Vukoli ´c, “Blockchain consensus protocols in the wild,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01873 , 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Survey of consen- sus protocols on blockchain applications,

    L. S. Sankar, M. Sindhu, and M. Sethumadhavan, “Survey of consen- sus protocols on blockchain applications,” in 2017 4th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    A fistful of bitcoins: characterizing payments among men with no names,

    S. Meiklejohn, M. Pomarole, G. Jordan, K. Levchenko, D. McCoy, G. M. V oelker, and S. Savage, “A fistful of bitcoins: characterizing payments among men with no names,” in Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference . ACM, 2013, pp. 127–140

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    When the cookie meets the blockchain: Privacy risks of web payments via cryptocurrencies,

    S. Goldfeder, H. Kalodner, D. Reisman, and A. Narayanan, “When the cookie meets the blockchain: Privacy risks of web payments via cryptocurrencies,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies , vol. 2018, no. 4, pp. 179–199, 2018

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    The interplay between decentralization and privacy: the case of blockchain technologies,

    D. F. Primavera, “The interplay between decentralization and privacy: the case of blockchain technologies,” Journal of Peer Production , vol. 9, 2016

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Deanonymisa- tion of clients in bitcoin p2p network,

    A. Biryukov, D. Khovratovich, and I. Pustogarov, “Deanonymisa- tion of clients in bitcoin p2p network,” in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 2014, pp. 15–29

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies,

    F. Tschorsch and B. Scheuermann, “Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 2084–2123, 2016

    work page 2084

  46. [46]

    Bitcoin Transaction Graph Analysis

    M. Fleder, M. S. Kester, and S. Pillai, “Bitcoin transaction graph analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.01657 , 2015

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Evaluating user privacy in bitcoin,

    E. Androulaki, G. O. Karame, M. Roeschlin, T. Scherer, and S. Capkun, “Evaluating user privacy in bitcoin,” in International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security . Springer, 2013, pp. 34– 51

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    Privacy on the blockchain,

    V . Buterin, “Privacy on the blockchain,” https://blog.ethereum.org/ 2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/, 2016

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Zcash protocol specification,

    D. Hopwood, S. Bowe, T. Hornby, and N. Wilcox, “Zcash protocol specification,” Tech. rep. 2016–1.10. Zerocoin Electric Coin Company, Tech. Rep., 2016

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Enigma: Decentralized Computation Platform with Guaranteed Privacy

    G. Zyskind, O. Nathan, and A. Pentland, “Enigma: Decentral- ized computation platform with guaranteed privacy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03471, 2015

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    M ¨obius: Trustless tumbling for trans- action privacy,

    S. Meiklejohn and R. Mercer, “M ¨obius: Trustless tumbling for trans- action privacy,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies , vol. 2018, no. 2, pp. 105–121, 2018

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    A. M. Antonopoulos, Mastering Bitcoin: unlocking digital cryptocur- rencies. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2014

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    Narayanan, J

    A. Narayanan, J. Bonneau, E. Felten, A. Miller, and S. Goldfeder, Bit- coin and cryptocurrency technologies: A comprehensive introduction . Princeton University Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Blockchain: properties and misconceptions,

    D. Conte de Leon, A. Q. Stalick, A. A. Jillepalli, M. A. Haney, and F. T. Sheldon, “Blockchain: properties and misconceptions,” Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 286– 300, 2017

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Blockchains and data protection in the european union,

    M. Finck, “Blockchains and data protection in the european union,” Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. , vol. 4, p. 17, 2018

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    A survey on long-range attacks for proof of stake protocols,

    E. Deirmentzoglou, G. Papakyriakopoulos, and C. Patsakis, “A survey on long-range attacks for proof of stake protocols,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 28 712–28 725, 2019

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems, 2015,

    T. Swanson, “Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems, 2015,” 2015

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    Understanding The DAO Hack for Journalists,

    D. Siegel, “Understanding The DAO Hack for Journalists,” https://medium.com/@pullnews/understanding-the-dao-hack-for- journalists-2312dd43e993, 2016. 12

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Blockchain and privacy protection in the case of the european general data protection regulation (GDPR): a delphi study,

    S. Schwerin, “Blockchain and privacy protection in the case of the european general data protection regulation (GDPR): a delphi study,” The JBBA, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3554, 2018

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Forgetting personal data and revoking consent under the GDPR: Challenges and proposed solutions,

    E. Politou, E. Alepis, and C. Patsakis, “Forgetting personal data and revoking consent under the GDPR: Challenges and proposed solutions,” Journal of Cybersecurity , vol. 4, no. 1, p. tyy001, 2018

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Blockchain and the european union’s general data protection regulation: A chance to harmonize international data flows,

    S. Sater, “Blockchain and the european union’s general data protection regulation: A chance to harmonize international data flows,” Available at SSRN 3080987 , 2017

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    The distributed liability of distributed ledgers: Legal risks of blockchain,

    D. A. Zetzsche, R. P. Buckley, and D. W. Arner, “The distributed liability of distributed ledgers: Legal risks of blockchain,” U. Ill. L. Rev., p. 1361, 2018

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    On blockchains and the general data protection regulation,

    L.-D. Ib ´a˜nez, K. O’Hara, and E. Simperl, “On blockchains and the general data protection regulation,” https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/ 422879, 2018

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Backups and the right to be forgotten in the GDPR: An uneasy relationship,

    E. Politou, A. Michota, E. Alepis, M. Pocs, and C. Patsakis, “Backups and the right to be forgotten in the GDPR: An uneasy relationship,” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1247–1257, 2018

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    “Opinion 15/2011 on the definition of consent

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ““Opinion 15/2011 on the definition of consent” WP 187,” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/ privacy/docs/wpdocs/2011/wp187 en.pdf

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    Blockchain and the european union general data protection regulation: The cnil’s perspective,

    F. Martin-Bariteau, “Blockchain and the european union general data protection regulation: The cnil’s perspective,” Blckchn. ca Working Paper Series, vol. 1, 2018

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Blockchain, solutions for a responsible use of the blockchain in the context of personal data,

    Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Liberte ´s (CNIL), “Blockchain, solutions for a responsible use of the blockchain in the context of personal data,” https://www.cnil.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/ files/blockchain.pdf, 2018

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    Opinion 5/2018, Preliminary Opinion on privacy by design,

    European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), “Opinion 5/2018, Preliminary Opinion on privacy by design,” https: //edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/18-05-31 preliminary opinion on privacy by design en 0.pdf, 2018

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    Resolution of 3 October 2018 on distributed ledger technologies and blockchains: building trust with disintermedi- ation (2017/2772(RSP)),

    European Parliament, “Resolution of 3 October 2018 on distributed ledger technologies and blockchains: building trust with disintermedi- ation (2017/2772(RSP)),” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2018-0373&language=EN, 2018

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    Will GDPR block Blockchain?

    A. Toth, “Will GDPR block Blockchain?” https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2018/05/will-gdpr-block-blockchain/, 2018

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    Privacy by blockchain design: a blockchain- enabled GDPR-compliant approach for handling personal data,

    C. Wirth and M. Kolain, “Privacy by blockchain design: a blockchain- enabled GDPR-compliant approach for handling personal data,” in Proceedings of 1st ERCIM Blockchain Workshop 2018 . European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET), 2018

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    Accenture: Absolute immutability will slow blockchain progress,

    D. Treat, “Accenture: Absolute immutability will slow blockchain progress,” https://www.coindesk.com/absolute-immutability-will-slow- permissioned-blockchain-progress, 2016

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    On or off the blockchain? insights on off- chaining computation and data,

    J. Eberhardt and S. Tai, “On or off the blockchain? insights on off- chaining computation and data,” in European Conference on Service- Oriented and Cloud Computing . Springer, 2017, pp. 3–15

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    Deploy- ing metadata on blockchain technologies,

    E. Garc ´ıa-Barriocanal, S. S´anchez-Alonso, and M.-A. Sicilia, “Deploy- ing metadata on blockchain technologies,” in Research Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research . Springer, 2017, pp. 38–49

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    IPFS, InterPlanetary File System,

    “IPFS, InterPlanetary File System,” https://ipfs.io/

    work page

  76. [76]

    MOF-BC: A memory optimized and flexible blockchain for large scale networks,

    A. Dorri, S. S. Kanhere, and R. Jurdak, “MOF-BC: A memory optimized and flexible blockchain for large scale networks,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 92, pp. 357–373, 2019

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    The Blockchain-GDPR Paradox,

    A. Van Humbeeck, “The Blockchain-GDPR Paradox,” https://medium.com/wearetheledger/the-blockchain-gdpr-paradox- fc51e663d047, 2017

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Applying blockchain technology in global data infrastructure,

    Open Data Institute, “Applying blockchain technology in global data infrastructure,” https://theodi.org/article/applying-blockchain- technology-in-global-data-infrastructure, 2016

    work page 2016

  79. [79]

    Redactable blockchain–or–rewriting history in bitcoin and friends,

    G. Ateniese, B. Magri, D. Venturi, and E. Andrade, “Redactable blockchain–or–rewriting history in bitcoin and friends,” in 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 111–126

    work page 2017

  80. [80]

    Quantum attacks on bitcoin, and how to protect against them,

    D. Aggarwal, G. K. Brennen, T. Lee, M. Santha, and M. Tomamichel, “Quantum attacks on bitcoin, and how to protect against them,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10377, 2017

    work page arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.