pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.09289 · v1 · pith:3RAEOWVFnew · submitted 2019-07-22 · 💻 cs.DC

Properties of Decentralized Consensus Technology -- Why not every Blockchain is a Blockchain

Christopher Ehmke , Florian Blum , Volker Gruhn This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords decentralized consensus technologyblockchaindecentralized ledger technologydecentralizationtrustlessnessconsensustaxonomyproperties
0
0 comments X

The pith

Not every system achieving decentralized consensus qualifies as blockchain technology; blockchain is one implementation of decentralized ledger technology within the broader category of decentralized consensus technology.

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

The paper contends that inconsistent terminology in blockchain research makes it unclear which new systems still qualify as blockchains. It proposes Decentralized Consensus Technology as the general category that includes both ledger-based and non-ledger systems capable of decentralization, trustlessness, and eventual consensus. Blockchain technology is defined as only one of multiple possible implementations of decentralized ledger technology. The authors list three core characteristics plus a set of use-case-dependent properties that implementations must satisfy. This structure is offered to bring order to a field where terms lack shared meaning.

Core claim

We propose to use the term Decentralized Consensus Technology as a general category instead. Decentralized Consensus Technology consists of decentralized ledger and non-ledger technologies. Blockchain technology in turn is only one of multiple implementations of the Decentralized Ledger Technology. Furthermore, we identified three main characteristics of Decentralized Consensus Technology: decentralization, trustlessness and ability to eventually reach consensus. Depending on the use case of the specific implementation the following additional properties have to be considered: privacy, participation incentive, irreversibility and immutability, operation purpose, confirmation time, and so on.

What carries the argument

The nested taxonomy that places blockchain as one implementation inside decentralized ledger technology, which itself sits inside the umbrella category of decentralized consensus technology.

If this is right

  • Systems that achieve the three core characteristics without using ledgers still belong under decentralized consensus technology.
  • Only specific ledger-based implementations should receive the label blockchain.
  • Each implementation must be assessed against the additional properties such as privacy and scalability that vary by use case.
  • New approaches that challenge the original Bitcoin design can be described accurately without forcing them into the blockchain label.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Standardizing on this hierarchy could reduce mislabeling when papers compare ledger and non-ledger consensus systems.
  • Application designers might deliberately select non-ledger variants when full immutability is unnecessary.
  • The classification invites mapping existing projects to test whether the three core characteristics plus the listed properties cover all relevant cases.

Load-bearing premise

Current research lacks a commonly shared knowledge and consensus about the terms used to describe the technology and its properties.

What would settle it

A broad survey of recent literature that finds consistent, precise usage of the term blockchain across differing implementations would remove the stated motivation for introducing a new umbrella category.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.09289 by Christopher Ehmke, Florian Blum, Volker Gruhn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Average Bitcoin transaction fee in USD according to https:// bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html (visited 2019-01-21) follow a process also described in form of a BIP2 . The idea of BIPs is that new ideas are discussed in discussion groups growing in size until they reach the whole community. At that point the network members are able to vote in favor (or against) such an improvement … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Size of the Bitcoin blockchain in MB according to https://www.blockchain.com/ de/charts/blocks-size (visited on 2019-01-21) Other approaches like sidechains and off-chaining (as explained in the following section) propose to reduce the number of operations required to be executed on the main chain and therefore would help to slow down the growing of the chain. Nevertheless, new participants would still nee… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distinction between centralized, decentralized and distributed systems according to Baran (Figure taken from [17]) Event though there is ongoing research trying to develop consensus mechanisms that cannot be outsourced to mining pools [52] and that are not easily adaptable for specialized hardware [151,117], it still has to be questioned whether the current networks can handle specific attacks while the co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Decentralized Consensus Technology and its subsets 4.1 Differentiation of Distributed Ledger Technology We described before that a lot of projects and innovations are based on Bitcoin￾like blockchain technology but sometimes modify important properties of the original concept. Nevertheless, they are very often still described with term blockchain technology. While this is probably correct in some cases, th… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Research in the field of blockchain technology and applications is increasing at a fast pace. Although the Bitcoin whitepaper by Nakamoto is already ten years old, the field can still be seen as immature and at an early stage. Current research in this area is lacking a commonly shared knowledge and consensus about terms used to describe the technology and its properties. At the same time this research is challenging fundamental aspects of the Bitcoin core concept. It has to be questioned whether all of these new approaches still adequately could be described as blockchain technology. We propose to use the term Decentralized Consensus Technology as a general category instead. Decentralized Consensus Technology consists of decentralized ledger and non-ledger technologies. Blockchain technology in turn is only one of multiple implementations of the Decentralized Ledger Technology. Furthermore, we identified three main characteristics of Decentralized Consensus Technology: decentralization, trustlessness and ability to eventually reach consensus. Depending on the use case of the specific implementation the following additional properties have to be considered: privacy, participation incentive, irreversibility and immutability, operation purpose, confirmation time, transaction costs, ability to externalize transactions and computations and scalability possibilities.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that blockchain research lacks shared consensus on terminology and proposes 'Decentralized Consensus Technology' (DCT) as a general category. DCT consists of decentralized ledger technologies (DLT) and non-ledger technologies, with blockchain as one implementation of DLT. It identifies three main characteristics—decentralization, trustlessness, and ability to eventually reach consensus—plus use-case-dependent properties including privacy, participation incentive, irreversibility and immutability, operation purpose, confirmation time, transaction costs, ability to externalize transactions and computations, and scalability possibilities.

Significance. If the proposed distinctions prove useful, the hierarchical framing could reduce terminological ambiguity in distributed consensus research. The paper offers no empirical validation, examples, or comparisons, so any significance would depend on subsequent adoption and testing by the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central motivation—that 'Current research in this area is lacking a commonly shared knowledge and consensus about terms'—is asserted without evidence, survey data, or citation analysis. This premise is load-bearing for the decision to introduce new terminology.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: No formal definitions are supplied for DCT, DLT, or the three core characteristics, and the text contains no concrete examples or side-by-side comparison with existing implementations to demonstrate why these three traits are primary or why the new category improves on prior usage.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Minor phrasing issue—'adequately could be described' should be re-ordered to 'could adequately be described' for grammatical clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating where we agree that revisions are warranted.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central motivation—that 'Current research in this area is lacking a commonly shared knowledge and consensus about terms'—is asserted without evidence, survey data, or citation analysis. This premise is load-bearing for the decision to introduce new terminology.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript states this premise without accompanying survey data, citation analysis, or explicit examples of terminological inconsistency. While the observation arises from our examination of the literature, we agree that the claim would benefit from concrete support. We will revise the abstract and introduction to include specific references and brief illustrations of divergent usage in the field. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: No formal definitions are supplied for DCT, DLT, or the three core characteristics, and the text contains no concrete examples or side-by-side comparison with existing implementations to demonstrate why these three traits are primary or why the new category improves on prior usage.

    Authors: The provided abstract is intentionally concise and does not contain formal definitions or comparative examples. We agree that the absence of these elements limits the clarity of the proposed framework. In the revised manuscript we will supply concise formal definitions for DCT, DLT, and the three core characteristics, together with brief illustrative examples drawn from existing systems to justify the selection of those characteristics and the utility of the new category. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Terminology proposal contains no derivational or predictive claims

full rationale

The manuscript is a definitional taxonomy paper. It states the motivation (lack of shared terminology) and proposes new category names (DCT > DLT > blockchain) plus a list of properties. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. No self-citations are used to justify any uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The central proposal is therefore self-contained and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper is a conceptual proposal without mathematical derivations or data; the ledger records the definitional assumptions and the newly introduced category.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Current research in this area is lacking a commonly shared knowledge and consensus about terms used to describe the technology and its properties.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the motivation for the new terminology.
invented entities (1)
  • Decentralized Consensus Technology no independent evidence
    purpose: Umbrella category that groups decentralized ledger technologies and non-ledger technologies.
    New term and category introduced by the authors without reference to prior usage or external validation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5731 in / 1398 out tokens · 45083 ms · 2026-05-24T18:04:41.181444+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

153 extracted references · 153 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Antonopoulos: Introduction to bitcoin (2016), https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1si5ZWLgy0

    Andreas M. Antonopoulos: Introduction to bitcoin (2016), https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1si5ZWLgy0

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    In: Holz, T., Ioannidis, S

    Androulaki, E., Karame, G.O.: Hiding transaction amounts and balances in bitcoin. In: Holz, T., Ioannidis, S. (eds.) Trust and Trustworthy Computing. pp. 161–178. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    O’Reilly, 1

    Antonopoulos, A.M.: Mastering bitcoin. O’Reilly, 1. edition edn. (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    ”O’Reilly Media, Inc.” (2017)

    Antonopoulos, A.M.: Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain. ”O’Reilly Media, Inc.” (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    O’Reilly Media, Incorporated (2018), https://github.com/ ethereumbook/ethereumbook, google-Books-ID: SedSMQAACAAJ

    Antonopoulos, A.M., Wood, G.: Mastering Ethereum: Building Smart Con- tracts and Dapps. O’Reilly Media, Incorporated (2018), https://github.com/ ethereumbook/ethereumbook, google-Books-ID: SedSMQAACAAJ

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    In: Conti, M., Schunter, M., Askoxylakis, I

    Armknecht, F., Karame, G.O., Mandal, A., Youssef, F., Zenner, E.: Ripple: Overview and outlook. In: Conti, M., Schunter, M., Askoxylakis, I. (eds.) Trust and Trustworthy Computing. pp. 163–180. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Aru, I.: Can blockchain technology survive without cryptocurrencies? (2018), https://www.ccn.com/can-blockchain-technology-survive-without- cryptocurrencies/

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    In: 2017 IEEE Euro- pean Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS P)

    Ateniese, G., Magri, B., Venturi, D., Andrade, E.: Redactable blockchain - or - rewriting history in bitcoin and friends. In: 2017 IEEE Euro- pean Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS P). pp. 111–126 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSP.2017.37

    work page doi:10.1109/eurosp.2017.37 2017

  9. [9]

    In: Maffei, M., Ryan, M

    Atzei, N., Bartoletti, M., Cimoli, T.: A survey of attacks on ethereum smart contracts (SoK). In: Maffei, M., Ryan, M. (eds.) Principles of Security and Trust. pp. 164–186. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2017) Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Comments Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Comments Why not every Blockchain...

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    In: 2016 2nd Inter- national Conference on Open and Big Data (OBD)

    Azaria, A., Ekblaw, A., Vieira, T., Lippman, A.: MedRec: Using blockchain for medical data access and permission management. In: 2016 2nd Inter- national Conference on Open and Big Data (OBD). pp. 25–30 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/OBD.2016.11

    work page doi:10.1109/obd.2016.11 2016

  11. [11]

    Back, A.: Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure (2002), http:// www.hashcash.org/hashcash.pdf

    work page 2002

  12. [12]

    Back, A., Corallo, M., Dashjr, L., Friedenbach, M., Maxwell, G., Miller, A., Poelstra, A., Tim´ on, J., Wuille, P.: Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains (2014), http://kevinriggen.com/files/sidechains.pdf

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Masking the GLP Lattice-Based Signature Scheme at Any Order,

    Badertscher, C., Garay, J., Maurer, U., Tschudi, D., Zikas, V.: But why does it work? a rational protocol design treatment of bitcoin. In: Advances in Cryptology EUROCRYPT 2018. pp. 34–65. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8 2, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8 2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8 2018

  14. [14]

    Baird, L.: The swirlds hashgraph consensus algorithm: Fair, fast, byzantine fault tol- erance (2016), https://www.swirlds.com/downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01 .pdf

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Baird, L.: Methods and apparatus for a distributed database within a network (2017), https://patents.google.com/patent/US9646029/en

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing

    Bamert, T., Decker, C., Elsen, L., Wattenhofer, R., Welten, S.: Have a snack, pay with bitcoins. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing. pp. 1–5 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/P2P.2013.6688717

    work page doi:10.1109/p2p.2013.6688717 2013

  17. [17]

    IEEE Transactions on Communications Systems 12(1), 1–9 (1964)

    Baran, P.: On distributed communications networks. IEEE Transactions on Communications Systems 12(1), 1–9 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCOM.1964.1088883

    work page doi:10.1109/tcom.1964.1088883 1964

  18. [18]

    In: Fi- nancial Cryptography and Data Security

    Bartoletti, M., Pompianu, L.: An analysis of bitcoin OP return metadata. In: Fi- nancial Cryptography and Data Security. pp. 218–230. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain

    Bartolucci, S., Bernat, P., Joseph, D.: SHARVOT: Secret SHARe-based VOTing on the blockchain. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain. pp. 30–34. WETSEB ’18, ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3194113.3194118, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 3194113.3194118

    work page doi:10.1145/3194113.3194118 2018

  20. [20]

    In: Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)

    Beck, R., Czepluch, J.S., Lollike, N., Malone, S.: Blockchain - the gateway to trust-free crypthographic transactions. In: Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). p. 15 (2016)

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    In: 2015 IEEE/ACIS 16th International Conference on Software Engi- neering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD)

    Beikverdi, A., JooSeok Song: Trend of centralization in bitcoin’s distributed network. In: 2015 IEEE/ACIS 16th International Conference on Software Engi- neering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/SNPD.2015.7176229, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7176229/

    work page doi:10.1109/snpd.2015.7176229 2015

  22. [22]

    Belizaire, J.: Soluna powering the blockchain (2018), https://soluna.io/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/Soluna white paper v1.2 20180905.pdf

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the Twen- tieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non- cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation. In: Proceedings of the Twen- tieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. pp. 1–10. STOC ’88, ACM (1988). https://doi.org/10.1145/62212.62213, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 62212.62213

    work page doi:10.1145/62212.62213 1988

  24. [24]

    Ehmke et al

    Benet, J.: IPFS - content addressed, versioned, p2p file system (2018), https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmR7GSQM93Cx5eAg6a6yRzNde1FQv7uL6X1o4k7zrJa3LX/ ipfs.draft3.pdf Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Comments Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Comments 30 C. Ehmke et al

    work page 2018

  25. [26]

    ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 42(3), 34–37 (2014)

    Bentov, I., Lee, C., Mizrahi, A., Rosenfeld, M.: Proof of activity: Extending bitcoin’s proof of work via proof of stake [extended ab- stract]. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 42(3), 34–37 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2695533.2695545, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 2695533.2695545

    work page doi:10.1145/2695533.2695545 2014

  26. [27]

    In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Mis- sikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T

    Bocek, T., Stiller, B.: Smart contracts - blockchains in the wings. In: Linnhoff- Popien, C., Schneider, R., Zaddach, M. (eds.) Digital Marketplaces Unleashed, pp. 169–184. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662- 49275-8 19, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49275-8 19

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662- 2018

  27. [28]

    Bodrova, A.: What are decentralized applications (dapps) (2017), https://medium.com/ethereum-dapp-builder/what-are-decentralized- applications-dapps-ed7459a27786

    work page 2017

  28. [29]

    In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security

    Boehm, F., Pesch, P.: Bitcoin: A first legal analysis. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security. pp. 43–54. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44774-1 4, https: //link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-44774-1 4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44774-1 2014

  29. [30]

    In: 2014 Twelfth Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust

    Bohr, J., Bashir, M.: Who uses bitcoin? an exploration of the bitcoin community. In: 2014 Twelfth Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust. pp. 94–101 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/PST.2014.6890928

    work page doi:10.1109/pst.2014.6890928 2014

  30. [31]

    In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

    Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: SoK: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. pp. 104–121 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2015.14

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2015.14 2015

  31. [32]

    In: Christin, N., Safavi- Naini, R

    Bonneau, J., Narayanan, A., Miller, A., Clark, J., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: Mixcoin: Anonymity for bitcoin with accountable mixes. In: Christin, N., Safavi- Naini, R. (eds.) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. pp. 486–504. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2014)

    work page 2014

  32. [33]

    Engineering Technology 10(2), 68–71 (2015)

    Bradbury, D.: In blocks [security bitcoin]. Engineering Technology 10(2), 68–71 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1049/et.2015.0208

    work page doi:10.1049/et.2015.0208 2015

  33. [34]

    Buterin, V.: Ethereum White Paper - A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform (2014), https://github.com/ethereum/wiki

    work page 2014

  34. [35]

    Buterin, V.: The meaning of decentralization (2017), https://medium.com/ @VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274

    work page 2017

  35. [36]

    Buterin, V.: A prehistory of the ethereum protocol (2017), https://vitalik.ca/ general/2017/09/14/prehistory.html

    work page 2017

  36. [37]

    Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget

    Buterin, V., Griffith, V.: Casper the friendly finality gadget. arXiv:1710.09437 [cs] (2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09437

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [38]

    Cachin, C.: Blockchain, cryptography, and consensus (2017), https: //www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-Seminars/201703/Documents/ Christian%20Cachin%20blockchain-itu.pdf, ITU Workshop on ”Security Aspects of Blockchain”

    work page 2017

  38. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Con- ference on Computer and Communications Security

    Carlsten, M., Kalodner, H., Weinberg, S.M., Narayanan, A.: On the instability of bitcoin without the block reward. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Con- ference on Computer and Communications Security. pp. 154–167. CCS ’16, ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978408, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 2976749.2978408 Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Op...

    work page doi:10.1145/2976749.2978408 2016

  39. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation

    Castro, M., Liskov, B.: Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. vol. 99, pp. 173–186 (1999)

    work page 1999

  40. [41]

    In: 2017 3rd International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Networks (CINE)

    Chatterjee, R.: An overview of the emerging technology: Blockchain. In: 2017 3rd International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Networks (CINE). pp. 126–127 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/CINE.2017.33

    work page doi:10.1109/cine.2017.33 2017

  41. [42]

    In: Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems

    Chen, L., Xu, L., Shah, N., Gao, Z., Lu, Y., Shi, W.: On security anal- ysis of proof-of-elapsed-time (PoET). In: Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems. pp. 282–297. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69084-1 19, https: //link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-69084-1 19

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69084-1 2017

  42. [43]

    In: [1992] Proceedings of the 12th Interna- tional Conference on Distributed Computing Systems

    Chen, M., Wu, K., Yu, P.S.: Efficient decentralized consensus protocols in a distributed computing system. In: [1992] Proceedings of the 12th Interna- tional Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. pp. 426–433 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCS.1992.235012

    work page doi:10.1109/icdcs.1992.235012 1992

  43. [44]

    SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3080361, Social Science Research Network (2017), https: //papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3080361

    Chohan, U.W.: The cryptocurrency tumblers: Risks, legality and oversight. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3080361, Social Science Research Network (2017), https: //papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3080361

    work page 2017

  44. [45]

    counterparty.io: Protocol specification | counterparty (2018), https:// counterparty.io/docs/protocol specification/

    work page 2018

  45. [46]

    Dai, W.: b-money (1998), http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

    work page 1998

  46. [47]

    In: IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings

    Decker, C., Wattenhofer, R.: Information propagation in the bit- coin network. In: IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings. pp. 1–10 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/P2P.2013.6688704

    work page doi:10.1109/p2p.2013.6688704 2013

  47. [48]

    Duffy, J.M.: Everything you need to know about loom network, all in one place (up- dated regularly) (2018), https://medium.com/loom-network/everything-you- need-to-know-about-loom-network-all-in-one-place-updated-regularly- 64742bd839fe

    work page 2018

  48. [49]

    In: Brickell, E.F

    Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) Advances in Cryptology CRYPTO 92. pp. 139–147. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1993)

    work page 1993

  49. [51]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain

    Ehmke, C., Wessling, F., Friedrich, C.M.: Proof-of-property: a lightweight and scalable blockchain protocol. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Work- shop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain. pp. 48–51. ACM Press (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3194113.3194122, http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?doid=3194113.3194122

    work page doi:10.1145/3194113.3194122 2018

  50. [52]

    In: 2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W)

    Ekblaw, A., Barabas, C., Harvey-Buschel, J., Lippman, A.: Bitcoin and the myth of decentralization: Socio-technical proposals for restoring network integrity. In: 2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W). pp. 18–23 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/FAS-W.2016.18

    work page doi:10.1109/fas-w.2016.18 2016

  51. [53]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th Usenix Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation

    Eyal, I., Gencer, A.E., Sirer, E.G., Van Renesse, R.: Bitcoin-NG: A scalable blockchain protocol. In: Proceedings of the 13th Usenix Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. pp. 45–59. NSDI’16, USENIX Association (2016), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2930611.2930615

    work page arXiv 2016

  52. [54]

    Com- munications of the ACM 61(7), 95–102 (2018)

    Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Com- munications of the ACM 61(7), 95–102 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3212998, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3234519.3212998 Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Comments Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Comments 32 C. Ehmke et al

    work page doi:10.1145/3212998 2018

  53. [55]

    Finestone, M.: Game theory and blockchain — coinsquare news (2017), https: //news.coinsquare.com/digital-currency/game-theory-and-blockchain/

    work page 2017

  54. [56]

    Journal of the ACM (JACM) 32(2), 374–382 (1985)

    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 32(2), 374–382 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1145/3149.214121, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3149.214121

    work page doi:10.1145/3149.214121 1985

  55. [57]

    https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3102645, https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3102645

    Foley, S., Karlsen, J.R., Putni¸ nˇ s, T.J.: Sex, drugs, and bitcoin: How much illegal activity is financed through cryptocurrencies? SSRN Electronic Journal (2018). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3102645, https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3102645

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.3102645 2018

  56. [58]

    John Wiley & Sons (2015), http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=80664, OCLC: 894170560

    Franco, P.: Understanding bitcoin: cryptography, engineering and economics. John Wiley & Sons (2015), http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=80664, OCLC: 894170560

    work page 2015

  57. [59]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Gao, X., Clark, G.D., Lindqvist, J.: Of two minds, multiple addresses, and one ledger: Characterizing opinions, knowledge, and perceptions of bitcoin across users and non-users. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1656–1668. CHI ’16, ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858049, http://doi.acm.org/1...

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858049 2016

  58. [60]

    In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security 2018

    Gencer, A.E., Basu, S., Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security 2018. p. 18 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [61]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2014.49, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/ epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6824541

    Gervais, A., Karame, G.O., Capkun, V., Capkun, S.: Is bitcoin a de- centralized currency? IEEE Security & Privacy 12(3), 54–60 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2014.49, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/ epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6824541

    work page doi:10.1109/msp.2014.49 2014

  60. [62]

    In: Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Gervais, A., Ritzdorf, H., Karame, G.O., Capkun, S.: Tampering with the delivery of blocks and transactions in bitcoin. In: Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. pp. 692–

    work page

  61. [63]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813655, http: //doi.acm.org/10.1145/2810103.2813655

    CCS ’15, ACM (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813655, http: //doi.acm.org/10.1145/2810103.2813655

    work page doi:10.1145/2810103.2813655 2015

  62. [64]

    Gipp, B., Meuschke, N., Gernandt, A.: Decentralized trusted timestamping using the crypto currency bitcoin (2015), https://www.gipp.com/wp-content/ papercite-data/pdf/gipp15a.pdf

    work page 2015

  63. [65]

    In: 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)

    Glaser, F., Bezzenberger, L.: Beyond cryptocurrencies - a taxonomy of decentralized consensus systems. In: 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). p. 19 (2015)

    work page 2015

  64. [66]

    In: IECON 2017 - 43rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society

    Goranovi´ c, A., Meisel, M., Fotiadis, L., Wilker, S., Treytl, A., Sauter, T.: Blockchain applications in microgrids an overview of current projects and concepts. In: IECON 2017 - 43rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. pp. 6153–6158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2017.8217069

    work page doi:10.1109/iecon.2017.8217069 2017

  65. [67]

    Computer 47(4), 116–116 (2014)

    Grier, D.A.: All that glitters is not gold. Computer 47(4), 116–116 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2014.79

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2014.79 2014

  66. [68]

    In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C)

    Gries, S., Meyer, O., Wessling, F., Hesenius, M., Gruhn, V.: Using blockchain technology to ensure trustful information flow monitoring in CPS. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). pp. 35–38 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSA-C.2018.00014

    work page doi:10.1109/icsa-c.2018.00014 2018

  67. [69]

    In: Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium

    Heilman, E., Kendler, A., Zohar, A., Goldberg, S.: Eclipse attacks on bit- coin’s peer-to-peer network. In: Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium. pp. 129–144. SEC’15, USENIX Association (2015), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2831143.2831152 Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Comments Draft – Not Peer Reviewed – Open For Com...

    work page arXiv 2015

  68. [70]

    Hern, A.: Bitcoin currency could have been destroyed by ’512014), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/16/bitcoin-currency- destroyed-51-attack-ghash-io

    work page 2014

  69. [71]

    Hornyak, T.: One group controls 51 percent of bitcoin mining, threatening secu- rity sanctity (Jun 2014), https://www.pcworld.com/article/2364000/bitcoin- price-dips-as-backers-fear-mining-monopoly .html

    work page arXiv 2014

  70. [72]

    Hrones, M.: Segwit activated: How it works & what’s next for bitcoin (2017), https://bitcoinist.com/segwit-activated-next-bitcoin/

    work page 2017

  71. [73]

    Harvard Business Review 95(1), 118–127 (2017), https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about- blockchain

    Iansiti, M., Lakhani, K.R.: The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review 95(1), 118–127 (2017), https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about- blockchain

    work page 2017

  72. [74]

    Johnston, D., Yilmaz, S.O., Kandah, J., Bentenitis, N., Hashemi, F., Gross, R., Wilkinson, S., Mason, S.: DecentralizedApplications: Decentralized appli- cations white paper and spec (2013), https://github.com/DavidJohnstonCEO/ DecentralizedApplications

    work page 2013

  73. [75]

    In: In Proc

    Karame, G.O.: Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In: In Proc. of Conference on Computer and Communication Security (2012)

    work page 2012

  74. [76]

    In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks

    Kiffer, L., Levin, D., Mislove, A.: Stick a fork in it: Analyzing the ethereum network partition. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks. pp. 94–100. HotNets-XVI, ACM (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3152434.3152449, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3152434.3152449

    work page doi:10.1145/3152434.3152449 2017

  75. [77]

    King, S.: Primecoin: Cryptocurrency with prime number proof-of-work (2013), http://www.cryptocoin.kr/attachment/ cfile7.uf@99A6C1365AF7044D238ED8.pdf

    work page 2013

  76. [78]

    IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) pp

    Kokoris-Kogias, E., Jovanovic, P., Gasser, L., Gailly, N., Syta, E., Ford, B.: OmniLedger: A secure, scale-out, decentralized ledger via shard- ing. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) pp. 19–34 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2018.000-5

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2018.000-5 2018

  77. [79]

    Kravchenko, P.: Does a blockchain really need a native coin? (2016), https://medium.com/@pavelkravchenko/does-a-blockchain-really-need- a-native-coin-f6a5ff2a13a3

    work page 2016

  78. [80]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2017.3051335

    Kshetri, N.: Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things? IT Professional 19(4), 68–72 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2017.3051335

    work page doi:10.1109/mitp.2017.3051335 2017

  79. [81]

    In: Foley, S.N., Gollmann, D., Snekkenes, E

    Kumar, A., Fischer, C., Tople, S., Saxena, P.: A traceability analysis of monero’s blockchain. In: Foley, S.N., Gollmann, D., Snekkenes, E. (eds.) Computer Security - ESORICS 2017. pp. 153–173. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing (2017)

    work page 2017

  80. [82]

    K¨ unnapas, K.: From Bitcoin to Smart Contracts: Legal Revolution or Evolution from the Perspective of de lege ferenda?, pp. 111–131. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5 6, https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5 6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5 2016

Showing first 80 references.