Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Raft resists 40% Byzantine nodes with under 10% throughput loss

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Integrating a blockchain-based trust/reputation model with Schnorr signatures into Raft keeps malicious leaders below 5% with under 10% throughput loss at 40% Byzantine nodes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-10 challenge →

load-bearing objection Reputation-gated Raft hardening with Schnorr signatures: solid systems work, but the load-bearing honest-reporting assumption is never tested. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08666 v1 pith:FAMCEYID submitted 2026-07-09 cs.CR

TRM-Raft: A Byzantine-Resistant Raft Consensus via Integrated Trust and Reputation Model

Jie Zhang , Xubo Fan , Xiaohong Li , Zhiyong Feng This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords raftreputationtrm-raftconsensuselectioninternetwareleaderbehaviors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that Raft, the consensus protocol underlying many distributed systems, can be made resistant to a practical subset of Byzantine attacks without replacing it with a full Byzantine fault-tolerant protocol. The authors integrate a blockchain-based trust and reputation model (B-TRM) into two phases of Raft: leader election and log replication. During election, the system monitors for anomalous jumps in term or index values (which signal forgery) and halves the offending node's reputation, eventually excluding low-reputation nodes from voting and candidacy. During log replication, each entry carries a Schnorr signature from the originating client, so followers can cryptographically detect if a leader has altered the payload. The combination is the central design move: reputation gating prevents chronically malicious nodes from seizing leadership, while signatures prevent any leader, once elected, from silently corrupting data. Evaluated on a Hyperledger Fabric testbed with up to 40% Byzantine nodes, the system reportedly keeps the malicious-leader ratio below 5% while losing less than 10% throughput and adding under 5% latency compared to standard Raft.

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that coupling a reactive, multi-dimensional reputation system with a cryptographic integrity check yields a practical middle ground between crash-fault-tolerant Raft and full Byzantine fault tolerance. Neither component alone suffices: reputation alone cannot stop a once-elected leader from tampering with logs, and signatures alone cannot stop a malicious node from repeatedly winning elections with forged metadata. Together, they force an adversary to defeat both a behavioral gate and a cryptographic verification step simultaneously. The authors report that this combined defense keeps the malicious leader ratio below 5% even when 40% of nodes are Byzantine, at a性能代价

What carries the argument

The mechanism has three parts. (1) B-TRM, a smart-contract-based reputation model that tracks three behavioral metrics per node—upload quality, modification integrity, and packet loss rate—weighted and combined into a score on [0,1], with adaptive penalty rules that freeze or remove nodes whose scores fall below 0.5. (2) A reputation-aware election monitor that flags candidates whose term or index increment exceeds twice the cluster average, halves their reputation, and rolls back their state. Nodes with reputation below 0.5 cannot vote or be voted for. (3) A Schnorr signature layer where clients sign each transaction before submission; the leader propagates the signature alongside the log,，

Load-bearing premise

The reputation model's behavioral metrics are derived from peer reports, and the system assumes that a simple majority of reporting nodes for any given metric are honest. If Byzantine nodes collude to form a temporary reporting majority against a target node, they can suppress an honest node's reputation or inflate a malicious node's score. The Schnorr signature layer provides objective ground truth for log tampering specifically, but the election-gating defense depends on

What would settle it

The paper's claims would be falsified if, under 40% Byzantine nodes, the malicious leader ratio exceeds 5% in sustained operation, or if throughput degradation exceeds 10% / latency increase exceeds 5% relative to vanilla Raft under comparable workloads. A stronger falsifier would be a collusion scenario where Byzantine nodes coordinate false peer reports to manipulate reputation scores, causing honest nodes to be excluded from elections while malicious nodes maintain eligibility—a scenario the paper's assumptions are designed to exclude but do not fully prevent.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Systems already running Raft (etcd, Kubernetes service registries, permissioned blockchains) could gain partial Byzantine resistance as a software upgrade rather than a protocol migration, broadening the deployment surface for Raft in adversarial network environments.
  • The design pattern—layering a reactive reputation system on top of a cryptographic integrity check—could be ported to other leader-based CFT protocols beyond Raft, such as Paxos variants, to achieve similar partial Byzantine resistance.
  • The threshold-based election monitor (flagging increments exceeding twice the cluster average) introduces a tunable security-availability tradeoff that operators can adjust based on their threat model, though the paper does not explore fully adaptive threshold selection.
  • The reputation model's reliance on peer-reported metrics creates a potential attack surface for collusion, which the authors acknowledge but only partially mitigate through the Schnorr signature backstop for the tampering dimension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TRM-Raft, a Byzantine-resistant enhancement of the Raft consensus protocol that integrates a blockchain-based Trust and Reputation Model (B-TRM) into Raft's leader election and log replication phases. The system combines two defense layers: (1) a reputation-aware election mechanism that detects anomalous term/index surges during elections, penalizes forgery attempts by halving the attacker's reputation, and excludes low-reputation nodes from voting and candidacy; and (2) a Schnorr-signature-based leader restriction mechanism that enables followers to verify log integrity and triggers reputation decay and leader replacement upon detecting tampering. The approach is evaluated on Hyperledger Fabric 2.5, reporting a malicious leader ratio below 5% with 40% Byzantine nodes, less than 10% throughput degradation, and under 5% latency increase compared to vanilla Raft. The paper positions TRM-Raft between crash-fault-tolerant Raft and full BFT protocols, targeting observable Byzantine deviations rather than arbitrary faults.

Significance. The paper addresses a practically relevant problem: hardening widely-deployed Raft-based systems against Byzantine behaviors without the full overhead of BFT protocols. The integration of a multi-dimensional reputation model with Schnorr-signature-verified log integrity in a single non-invasive framework is a reasonable design contribution. The implementation on Hyperledger Fabric 2.5 and the ablation analysis (Table 1) demonstrating that both layers are necessary provide useful empirical evidence. The qualitative comparison in Table 2 contextualizes the work against prior Raft hardening schemes. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the B-TRM model is drawn from the authors' own prior work [11], the security analysis consists of informal proof sketches rather than rigorous proofs, and the threat model explicitly excludes equivocation (transaction reordering), a known Raft vulnerability. The central empirical claim (malicious leader ratio below 5% at 40% Byzantine nodes) is the main contribution but depends on assumptions that are not stress-tested in the evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. The honest reporting threshold assumption (§3.1, §5.4.1) is structurally load-bearing for the election-gating defense but is never experimentally tested. The B-TRM reputation score that gates election eligibility (Rep < 0.5 exclusion, §5.1.2) is computed from three peer-reported metrics: Upload Quality, Modification Integrity, and Packet Loss Rate (§4.2). With 40% Byzantine nodes, colluding nodes could form a majority among the 'typically >=3' reporters for a specific target, inflating their own scores or suppressing honest nodes' scores below 0.5. This would either keep malicious nodes eligible for leadership despite local forgery detection (since peer-reported metrics could partially offset the halving penalty) or exclude honest nodes from voting. The experimental evaluation (§6.1) programs malicious nodes to execute forgery, tampering, On-Off, and discrimination attacks but does NOT包括
  2. Theorems 5.1-5.4 are informal proof sketches, not rigorous proofs. Theorem 5.4 (Practical Resilience) is explicitly probabilistic and time-dependent, justified by experimental results rather than analysis. The proof of Theorem 5.3 (Eventual Leader Election) states that 'a suitable candidate will eventually win' but does not bound the number of election rounds or the time to convergence. For a security paper claiming Byzantine resistance, the liveness argument should at minimum bound the convergence time given the reputation decay rate and evaluation interval parameters. The paper should either strengthen these proofs or reframe them explicitly as informal arguments.
  3. The interaction between the forgery detection penalty (Rep halving, §5.1.1) and the general reputation score (computed from peer-reported metrics, §4.2) is unclear. If a node is caught forging, its reputation is halved immediately. But the next evaluation cycle (within W_min = 2 minutes for low-reputation nodes) recomputes Rep from the three behavioral metrics. If colluding peers report favorably for the caught node, its reputation could recover above 0.5 before the next election, re-enabling its candidacy. The paper should clarify how the deterministic penalty (halving) interacts with the peer-reported score recomputation, and whether the penalty persists across evaluation cycles.
  4. The threat model (§3.1) explicitly excludes equivocation (transaction reordering without content alteration), which is a known Raft vulnerability. While the paper acknowledges this in §7, the exclusion is load-bearing for the claim of 'Byzantine resistance.' A malicious leader can reorder transactions to favor itself (e.g., front-running in blockchain contexts) without triggering Schnorr signature failures or term/index anomalies. The paper should more prominently qualify that TRM-Raft provides resistance against a restricted set of observable Byzantine behaviors, not general Byzantine fault tolerance, and discuss what classes of Internetware applications are adequately covered by this restricted model.
minor comments (6)
  1. §4.2: The penalty factor theta > 1 (default theta = 3) is stated but the sensitivity of the system to this parameter is not evaluated. A brief sensitivity analysis would strengthen the paper.
  2. Figure 3: The y-axis label 'Times (ms)' is confusing for a chart showing 'Number of times elected as leader.' The label should be corrected.
  3. §5.1.1: The choice of m = 2 is 'determined experimentally' but the justification is brief. The paper could note how this value generalizes to different cluster sizes or network conditions.
  4. Table 2: The 'Overhead' and 'Invasiveness' columns use qualitative labels (Low/Medium/High) without defining the criteria. Brief definitions would improve comparability.
  5. §6.6: The latency comparison (Figure 7b) uses a log scale but the text states 'less than 5% increase.' The raw numbers should be reported in a table for precision.
  6. Several cited references [5, 14, 16, 31, 32, 33, 34] share authors with this paper. The relationship to prior work [11] (RWS-BTRM) should be more explicitly stated, clarifying what is reused versus what is novel in this paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the core derivation is self-contained, with only minor self-citation of the B-TRM model that is not load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—malicious leader ratio below 5% at 40% Byzantine nodes, <10% throughput loss, <5% latency increase—are established through direct experimental evaluation on a Hyperledger Fabric testbed (§6), not by self-citation or definitional reduction. The B-TRM reputation model (§4) is cited to the authors' prior work [11], but the model's equations are fully restated in the paper (§4.2–4.5), and its integration into Raft's election and replication phases is the novel contribution. The Schnorr signature component (§5.2) relies on standard cryptographic assumptions (DLP hardness), not on the authors' prior results. The theorems in §5.4 (Leader Uniqueness, Log Content Integrity, Eventual Leader Election, Practical Resilience) are argued from first principles and the stated assumptions, not from self-cited theorems. While several references share authors with this paper, the self-citations serve to provide context for the B-TRM model and Internetware setting, not to import unverified uniqueness theorems or fitted parameters that would make the results circular. The experimental results are independently generated and falsifiable. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces 6+ free parameters that are hand-set or experimentally tuned without independent derivation. The core axioms are domain assumptions about observability and honest reporting majorities that are necessary for the system to function but are not independently verified. The invented entities (B-TRM, MonitorCandidate) are the paper's main contributions but their internal parameters lack theoretical grounding.

free parameters (6)
  • m (anomaly detection threshold) = 2
    Determined experimentally (§6.2) as the multiplier for cluster-average term/index increment above which a candidate is flagged as forgery. Directly affects false positive/negative rates.
  • theta (penalty amplification factor) = 3
    Amplifies impact of malicious actions in reputation metrics (§4.2). Default value chosen ad hoc; affects how quickly malicious nodes' reputation decays.
  • w_U, w_M, w_L (reputation weights) = 0.5, 0.3, 0.2
    Weights for Upload Quality, Modification Integrity, and Packet Loss Rate in direct reputation calculation (§4.3). No justification provided for these specific values.
  • Reputation threshold = 0.5
    Nodes below 0.5 reputation are excluded from voting and candidacy (§5.1.2). This is the critical gating threshold but its value is not derived or justified.
  • W_min, W_max (evaluation intervals) = 2 min, 30 min
    Dynamic evaluation interval bounds (§4.5). Affect detection latency and overhead but are hand-set.
  • a, b (interval linear coefficients) = unspecified
    Coefficients in W_i = a*Rep_i + b for high-reputation nodes (§4.5). Values not given.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Simple majority of reporting nodes for any metric is honest
    §3.1, §5.4.1. The reputation system's integrity depends on this assumption. If violated by colluding Byzantine nodes, reputation scores can be manipulated.
  • domain assumption All attacks in the defined failure set are observable
    §3.1. Forgery is detectable via term/index monitoring; tampering via Schnorr signatures. This excludes covert or undetectable Byzantine behaviors.
  • standard math Schnorr signatures are secure under DLP in the random oracle model
    §5.2.1. Standard cryptographic assumption; breaking requires ~2^128 operations on secp256k1.
  • domain assumption Network is partially synchronous with eventual message delivery
    §5.4.1. Standard assumption for liveness proofs in distributed systems.
  • domain assumption Initial honest majority (floor(n/2)+1) during bootstrap
    §5.4.1. Required for system initialization; if violated at bootstrap, the reputation system can be poisoned from the start.
  • domain assumption Natural term increment in normal Raft operation is typically 1
    §5.1.1. Justifies that forged increments (Delta) are detectably large. If an attacker increments by small values, detection may fail.
invented entities (2)
  • B-TRM (Blockchain-based Trust and Reputation Model) independent evidence
    purpose: Quantifies multi-dimensional node behavior and computes reputation scores used for election gating and penalty application
    Implemented as smart contracts on Hyperledger Fabric; evaluated experimentally with measurable outcomes (reputation changes, leader election rates). However, the model's parameters are hand-tuned rather than derived.
  • MonitorCandidate smart contract method no independent evidence
    purpose: Detects anomalous term/index surges during leader election and triggers reputation penalties
    Described in §5.1.1 but implementation details are not provided. The detection logic (comparing increments to m * cluster average) is specified but the smart contract itself is not shipped.

reviewed 2026-07-10 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TRM-Raft: A Byzantine-Resistant Raft Consensus via Integrated Trust and Reputation Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FAMCEYID

@misc{pith2026260708666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TRM-Raft: A Byzantine-Resistant Raft Consensus via Integrated Trust and Reputation Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FAMCEYID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08666}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Internetware envisions autonomous software entities collaborating over the open Internet. Raft consensus is widely adopted for its simplicity and performance in distributed coordination, e.g., service registries and blockchains. However, Raft assumes crash faults only, making it vulnerable to Byzantine behaviors like election forgery and log tampering. Existing BFT protocols incur high overhead, while ad-hoc hardening lacks unified defense. We propose \textbf{TRM-Raft}, a Byzantine-resistant enhancement that non-intrusively integrates a Blockchain-based Trust and Reputation Model (B-TRM) into the consensus core. It quantifies multi-dimensional node behaviors, applies adaptive penalties distinguishing accidental faults from malice, and embeds reputation into leader election and log replication. A reputation-aware election penalizes term/index forgery, excluding low-reputation nodes from leadership. A Schnorr-signature-based mechanism lets followers verify log integrity; tampering triggers reputation decay and leader replacement. Evaluated on Hyperledger Fabric in a realistic Internetware setting, TRM-Raft keeps malicious leader ratio below 5\% even with 40\% Byzantine nodes, with <10\% throughput loss and <5\% latency increase over vanilla Raft. TRM-Raft offers a lightweight, practical trustworthiness path for Internetware systems relying on Raft.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08666 by Jie Zhang, Xiaohong Li, Xubo Fan, Zhiyong Feng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A case of forgery attack. attacks[10], where an adversary creates multiple identities to in￾fluence consensus. TRM-Raft mitigates these attacks through a combination of identity registration (Section 5.3) and the reputa￾tion penalty rules defined in Section 4. 4 B-TRM: A Lightweight Blockchain-Based TRM To enable Raft consensus to distinguish between honest and mali￾cious nodes in a Byzantine environment, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TRM-Raft architecture: integration of B-TRM and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Impact of threshold 𝑚 on leader election. 6.3 Reputation-Based Election Mechanism We first evaluated the reputation-based election mechanism’s ability to prevent forgery attacks. In this experiment, three candidates participated: Node 1 (normal), Node 2 (forgery attacker), and Node 3 (On-Off attacker). As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of forgery attack prevention: TRM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tampering detection and leader replacement timeline: TRM-Raft vs. RB-Raft. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance under varying transaction loads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Defense effectiveness of TRM-Raft. (a) Election [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

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

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Elli Androulaki, Artem Barger, Vita Bortnikov, Christian Cachin, Konstanti- nos Christidis, Angelo De Caro, David Enyeart, Christopher Ferris, Gennady Laventman, Yacov Manevich, Srinivasan Muralidharan, Chet Murthy, Binh Nguyen, Manish Sethi, Gari Singh, Keith Smith, Alessandro Sorniotti, Chrysoula Stathakopoulou, Marko Vukolic, Sharon Weed Cocco, and Jas...

    work page doi:10.1145/3190508.3190538 2018

  2. [2]

    Badr Bellaj, Aafaf Ouaddah, Emmanuel Bertin, Noël Crespi, and Abdellatif Mezri- oui. 2022. SOK: A Comprehensive Survey on Distributed Ledger Technologies. In IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, ICBC 2022, Shanghai, China, May 2-5, 2022 . IEEE, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC54727. 2022.9805533

    work page doi:10.1109/icbc54727 2022

  3. [3]

    Rebello, Lucas Airam C

    Gustavo Franco Camilo, Gabriel Antonio F. Rebello, Lucas Airam C. de Souza, and Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte. 2020. A Secure Personal-Data Trading System Based on Blockchain, Trust, and Reputation. In IEEE International Conference on Blockchain, Blockchain 2020, Rhodes, Greece, November 2-6, 2020 . IEEE, 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1109/BLOCKCHAIN50366.2020.00055

    work page doi:10.1109/blockchain50366.2020.00055 2020

  4. [4]

    Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. 1999. Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. In Proceedings of the Third USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 22-25, 1999 . USENIX Association, 173–186

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Ran Chen, Jiabei Zhang, Fuquan Yuan, Bo Zhou, Wei Shi, and Haiming Zhou

    work page

  6. [6]

    In Internetware’20: 12th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Singapore, November 1-3, 2020

    Power Trading Model for Distributed Power Generation Systems Based on Consortium Blockchains. In Internetware’20: 12th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Singapore, November 1-3, 2020 . ACM, 91–98. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3457913.3457929

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Xiao Chen, Btissam Er-Rahmadi, Tiejun Ma, and Jane Hillston. 2023. ParBFT: An Optimized Byzantine Consensus Parallelism Scheme. IEEE Trans. Computers 72, 12 (2023), 3354–3369. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2023.3296916

    work page doi:10.1109/tc.2023.3296916 2023

  8. [8]

    Yitong Cheng, Shenglong Zhao, Yang Yu, and Zhichao Hua. 2025. DeFS: A Decentralized and High-Performance File System for Consortium Systems. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Internetware (Internetware ’25) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 186–197. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3755881.3755927

    work page doi:10.1145/3755881.3755927 2025

  9. [9]

    Pierre Civit, Seth Gilbert, and Vincent Gramoli. 2021. Polygraph: Accountable Byzantine Agreement. In 41st IEEE International Conference on Distributed Com- puting Systems, ICDCS 2021, Washington DC, USA, July 7-10, 2021 . IEEE, 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCS51616.2021.00046

    work page doi:10.1109/icdcs51616.2021.00046 2021

  10. [10]

    Larimer Daniel. 2014. Delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS). Bitshare whitepaper (2014)

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    John R. Douceur. 2002. The Sybil Attack. InPeer-to-Peer Systems, First International Workshop, IPTPS 2002, Cambridge, MA, USA, March 7-8, 2002, Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2429) . Springer, 251–260. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/3-540-45748-8_24

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-45748-8_24 2002

  12. [12]

    Xubo Fan, Jie Zhang, and Xiaohong Li. 2025. A blockchain-based trust and reputation model resilient to forgery attacks for data sharing scenarios (RWS- BTRM). Int. J. Inf. Sec. 24, 5 (2025), 205. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10207-025- 01050-Y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10207-025- 2025

  13. [13]

    Nils Fleischhacker, Tibor Jager, and Dominique Schröder. 2019. On Tight Security Proofs for Schnorr Signatures. J. Cryptol. 32, 2 (2019), 566–599. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/S00145-019-09311-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00145-019-09311-5 2019

  14. [14]

    Fangyu Gai, Baosheng Wang, Wenping Deng, and Wei Peng. 2018. Proof of Reputation: A Reputation-Based Consensus Protocol for Peer-to-Peer Network. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications - 23rd International Conference, DASFAA 2018, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, May 21-24, 2018, Proceedings, Part II (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10828) . Spr...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91458-9_41 2018

  15. [15]

    Zhang Jie, Xu Shanshan, and Yuan Lingyun. 2022. Internet of things access control model based on blockchain and edge computing. Journal of Computer Applications 42, 7 (2022), 2104–2111

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Imran Makhdoom, Farzad Tofigh, Ian Zhou, Mehran Abolhasan, and Justin Lipman. 2020. PLEDGE: A Proof-of-Honesty based Consensus Protocol for Blockchain-based IoT Systems. In IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, ICBC 2020, Toronto, ON, Canada, May 2-6, 2020 . IEEE, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC48266.2020.9169406

    work page doi:10.1109/icbc48266.2020.9169406 2020

  17. [17]

    Honglin Mao, Jie Zhang, Yao Zhang, and Xiaohong Li. 2025. A Cross-Domain Data Sharing Scheme Based on Federated Blockchain. In Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering - 19th International Symposium, TASE 2025, Limassol, Cyprus, July 14-16, 2025, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) . Springer, 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-98208-8_17

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98208-8_17 2025

  18. [18]

    Gregory Maxwell, Andrew Poelstra, Yannick Seurin, and Pieter Wuille. 2019. Simple Schnorr multi-signatures with applications to Bitcoin.Des. Codes Cryptogr. 87, 9 (2019), 2139–2164. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10623-019-00608-X

    work page doi:10.1007/s10623-019-00608-x 2019

  19. [19]

    Xinliang Miao, Fanlang Zeng, Rui Chang, Chenyang Yu, Zijun Zhang, Liehui Jiang, and Yongwang Zhao. 2022. Is your access allowed or not? A Verified Tag-based Access Control Framework for the Multi-domain TEE. In Internetware 2022: 13th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Hohhot, China, June 11 - 12,

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3545258.3545281

    ACM, 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545258.3545281

    work page doi:10.1145/3545258.3545281

  21. [21]

    Huang Minmin, Yuan Lingyun, Pan Xue, and Zhang Jie. 2023. Secure and Trusted Authentication Model Under Edge Computing and Multi-blockchain. Journal of Frontiers of Computer Science and Technology 17, 3 (2023), 733–747

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. (2008)

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    Ousterhout

    Diego Ongaro and John K. Ousterhout. 2014. In Search of an Understandable Con- sensus Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2014 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2014, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 19-20, 2014 . USENIX Association, 305–319

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Chen Peng, Qin Weijie, and Yu Xiaosheng. 2023. SRaft: A Raft Consensus Mech- anism Based on Schnorrkel Signature and Credit Value Mechanism. Computer Technology and Development 33, 7 (2023), 111–118

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Li Shuzhi, Zhou Yijie, and Deng Xiaohong. 2022. RB-Raft: A Raft Consensus Mechanism Resistant to Byzantine Nodes. Journal of Computer Applications Research 39, 9 (2022), 1001–3695

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Siben Tian, Fenhua Bai, Tao Shen, Chi Zhang, and Bei Gong. 2024. VSSB-Raft: A Secure and Efficient Zero Trust Consensus Algorithm for Blockchain. ACM Trans. Sens. Networks 20, 2 (2024), 34:1–34:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3611308

    work page doi:10.1145/3611308 2024

  27. [27]

    Sihan Tian, Yun Liu, Yansong Zhang, and Yingsi Zhao. 2021. A Byzantine Fault- Tolerant Raft Algorithm Combined with Schnorr Signature. In 15th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication, IMCOM 2021, Seoul, South Korea, January 4-6, 2021 . IEEE, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ IMCOM51814.2021.9377376

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Zhe Tu, Huachun Zhou, Kun Li, Haoxiang Song, and Yuzheng Yang. 2022. A Blockchain-based Trust and Reputation Model with Dynamic Evaluation Mech- anism for IoT. Comput. Networks 218 (2022), 109404. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. COMNET.2022.109404

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2022

  29. [29]

    Yichuan Wang, Mengjie Tian, Yaling Zhang, Xiaoxue Liu, Yeqiu Xiao, and Xin- hong Hei. 2022. A security enhancement scheme for raft consensus algorithm against term forgery attacks. In 2022 IEEE 21st International Conference on Ubiqui- tous Computing and Communications (IUCC/CIT/DSCI/SmartCNS). IEEE, 175–183

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Thomas Hou

    Yang Xiao, Ning Zhang, Wenjing Lou, and Y. Thomas Hou. 2020. A Survey of Distributed Consensus Protocols for Blockchain Networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials 22, 2 (2020), 1432–1465. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2020.2969706

    work page doi:10.1109/comst.2020.2969706 2020

  31. [31]

    Jie Xu, Cong Wang, and Xiaohua Jia. 2023. A Survey of Blockchain Consensus Protocols. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 13s (2023), 278:1–278:35. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3579845

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Reiter, Guy Golan-Gueta, and Ittai Abra- ham

    Maofan Yin, Dahlia Malkhi, Michael K. Reiter, Guy Golan-Gueta, and Ittai Abra- ham. 2019. HotStuff: BFT Consensus with Linearity and Responsiveness. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Comput- ing, PODC 2019, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 29 - August 2, 2019 . ACM, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1145/3293611.3331591

    work page doi:10.1145/3293611.3331591 2019

  33. [33]

    Jie Zhang, Xiaohong Li, Ruitao Feng, Shanshan Xu, Zhe Hou, Hanwei Wu, and Guangdong Bai. 2026. From Isolation to Integration: A Reputation-Backed Au- ditable Model for Cohort Data Sharing. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 23, 1 (2026), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2025.3609801

    work page doi:10.1109/tdsc.2025.3609801 2026

  34. [34]

    Jie Zhang, Xiaohong Li, Mengke Zhang, Ruitao Feng, Shanshan Xu, Zhe Hou, and Guangdong Bai. 2026. QAE-BAC: Achieving Quantifiable Anonymity and Efficiency in Blockchain-Based Access Control with Attribute. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2026), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2026.3695861

    work page doi:10.1109/jiot.2026.3695861 2026

  35. [35]

    Jie Zhang, Xiaohong Li, Man Zheng, Ruitao Feng, Shanshan Xu, Zhe Hou, and Guangdong Bai. 2026. VeriFuzzy: A Dynamic Verifiable Fuzzy Search Service Framework for Encrypted Cloud Data. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 19, 1 (2026), 780–793. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2025.3641367

    work page doi:10.1109/tsc.2025.3641367 2026

  36. [36]

    Mengke Zhang, Xiaohong Li, Jie Zhang, Zhe Hou, Guangdong Bai, and Ruitao Feng. 2025. SwiftGuard: Enhanced Privacy and Efficiency in Blockchain-Based Fine-Grained Access Control for Cross-Domain Healthcare Collaboration. In 28th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, CSCWD 2025, Compiegne, France, May 5-7, 2025 . IEEE, 1...

    work page doi:10.1109/cscwd64889.2025.11033363 2025

This paper was first reviewed by glm-5.2 on July 10, 2026.