Optimistic Verifiable Claims: A Blockchain Protocol for Conditionally Confidential Bidding in Decentralized Manufacturing

Marko Corn; Nejc Ro\v{z}man; Primo\v{z} Podr\v{z}aj

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Optimistic Verifiable Claims: A Blockchain Protocol for Conditionally Confidential Bidding in Decentralized Manufacturing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A blockchain protocol called Optimistic Verifiable Claims lets manufacturers bid on concealed design files, keeping the design private unless challenged while provably exposing any dishonest claim.

desk verdict Solid gas-measurement work and a genuinely new adjudication framework, but the core confidentiality guarantee is false: the 'encryption' is a 32-byte repeating-key XOR over structured G-code, trivially invertible by any observer. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25517 v1 pith:BBWXFURY submitted 2026-07-28 cs.CR cs.DCcs.GT

Marko Corn , Nejc Rožman , Primož Podržaj This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRcs.DCcs.GT

keywords optimisticverifiableclaimsdecentralizedmanufacturingconfidentialbiddingsmartcontractadjudicationG-codeverificationcommitmentschemeblockchaincostmeasurementintellectualpropertyprotection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

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 a blockchain protocol it calls Optimistic Verifiable Claims (OVC) dissolves the pre-contractual deadlock in decentralized manufacturing: a Consumer can publish an encrypted design file, a hash of it, and a public claim about it (say, how much filament it consumes), and a Provider can price and bid on that claim without ever seeing the design. The claim is bound at commitment; if the selected Provider challenges it, the Consumer must reveal the file on-chain, where a deterministic predicate returns a verdict (Valid, Inconsistent, Incorrect, or Withheld) that can be attributed to the faulty party. On the honest path the file never needs to be disclosed, so confidentiality is optimistic rather than absolute. The authors implement four such checks and measure them on a real 6.41 MB G-code file across three chains, reporting that a no-dispute service costs $7,207 on Ethereum but $2.87 on opBNB, and a fully contested dispute costs $49,660 versus $19.73. The point of the paper is that claim-based confidential bidding is economically feasible on rollups and that artifact size is bounded by the execution layer, not by the protocol.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the OVC primitive Ω = <c,w,V>: a commitment c=H(w), a private witness w, and a deterministic verification function V(w,c)=I(H(w)=c) and P(w,c) that exposes any dishonest claim when challenged. It is instantiated as four modular claims—Access, Identity, Conformance, and Feature—which are composed in an atomic binding transaction that reads the shared hash commitments from the sealed Demand, making cross-instance substitution require a hash collision. The economic analysis works by separating two O(n) stages (publishing the encrypted artifact and re-executing it under dispute) from two O(1) stages (binding and challenge), with a segmented execution mode that carries

What would settle it

Take the published 3DBenchy ciphertext and attempt a known-plaintext attack using the standard slicer header lines that appear at the top of G-code files; if any candidate key yields readable G-code whose hash matches the on-chain commitment, the no-dispute confidentiality claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the confidentiality-verifiability impasse can be reframed as optimistic adjudication: instead of verifying a claim before contracting, OVC binds a claim at bidding and makes it provably falsifiable under dispute. The primitive is a triplet Ω = <c,w,V> where the commitment c=H(w) hides a private witness w behind a collision-resistant hash, and V(w,c)=I(H(w)=c) and P(w,c) is a deterministic on-chain function combining a hash-consistency check with a semantic predicate. Four instances compose a pipeline: Access commits the decryption key and binds it to the selected Provider; Identity binds the triple (key, plaintext, ciphertext) and check

Load-bearing premise

The entire no-dispute confidentiality claim rests on the assumption that publishing C=G⊕K reveals nothing about G without K; but with a 32-byte repeating-key XOR and G-code's highly structured ASCII, an observer can recover K from known plaintext, so the design may not actually stay private before bidding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If OVC is correct, decentralized manufacturing marketplaces can let Providers price hidden designs from a committed claim alone, with no trusted broker and no pre-bid disclosure.
On high-throughput rollups like opBNB, a fully contested dispute of a 6.41 MB design settles in about 13 minutes for under $20, making dispute-based verification practical for professional print contracts.
On Ethereum, publication alone costs thousands of dollars and can take hours to days, so L1 is only viable as a settlement anchor, not as an execution surface.
Segmentation removes artifact size as a protocol-breaking constraint up to at least 50 MB; cost stays linear in size and duration is set by transaction count, so a large job is slow but not impossible.
The semantic predicate—verifying what the file claims to consume—dominates the dispute cost, so the choice of feature function, not cryptography, sets the protocol's operating point.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The confidentiality premise is weaker than the paper's framing suggests: the repeating-key XOR cipher (C=G⊕K with a 32-byte key) is vulnerable to known-plaintext recovery from predictable G-code headers, so an observer of the on-chain ciphertext could plausibly decrypt the design before any dispute; the paper does not flag this attack.
Because the paper's own limitations acknowledge that the plaintext-hash commitments of Conformance and Feature allow dictionary-style confirmation for low-entropy files, salting those commitments (H(G∥r)) is a minimal fix that would strengthen honest-path confidentiality without changing the gas model.
A natural testable extension is to swap the XOR cipher for an authenticated stream cipher or a key-encapsulation mechanism and re-run the gas sweeps; the paper's cost decomposition would still apply, and per-byte costs would likely change only modestly.
A corpus study of real G-code from multiple slicers and geometries would convert the paper's single-artifact margins into a distribution of typical costs, which the authors themselves list as future work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: this paper builds a genuinely new primitive—optimistic verifiable claims for decentralized manufacturing—and does valuable measurement work on gas costs, chunking, and L2 feasibility. But the central confidentiality guarantee is false. The implementation encrypts G-code with C = G ⊕ K where K is 32 bytes repeating. G-code is highly structured ASCII; 32 consecutive known bytes from a slicer header recover K, and even ciphertext-only frequency analysis will do it from ~200k samples per key position. Since C is posted on-chain at bidding, any observer can reconstruct the design before a Provider is chosen. Section 3.4's claim that publishing C “discloses nothing without K” is wrong, and Section 5.2's “readable only to the selected Provider” is false. Section 5.4 admits the commitments are binding-not-hiding and warns about dictionary attacks on plaintext hashes, but misses that the ciphertext itself is trivially invertible.

That's the load-bearing flaw. The rest is solid. The formal OVC state machine, the four claim instances, and the cross-instance consistency enforced by the binding coordinator are well structured. The gas measurements look careful: they used a real 6.41 MB 3DBenchy file, measured per-chunk gas with optimizer disabled, and the projected costs match their stated prices and block times. The segmentation analysis—finding the operating chunk from the limiting predicate, OVC-Feature—is a nice piece of systems work. The finding that semantic predicate cost dominates cryptographic cost in disputes is genuinely interesting.

The flaw is local and fixable. Replacing XOR with a proper stream cipher (AES-CTR with a per-file key) would restore the confidentiality claim, and the gas profile would change modestly. The on-chain verification in OVC-Identity would need to verify AES decryption, which is more expensive than XOR, but that's a measured cost, not a conceptual obstacle. The empirical economics and segmentation results would likely survive.

Verdict: conditional, as the reader says. This deserves a serious referee—the framework and measurements are worth engaging—but the authors must replace the broken cipher and re-evaluate the confidentiality claims. Without that, the paper's central positioning is unsupported.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Optimistic Verifiable Claim (OVC), a blockchain protocol intended to let a Consumer publish a verifiable claim about a concealed G-code design so that Providers can bid without seeing the file. The claim is bound at Bidding via a hash, and if challenged, a deterministic on-chain predicate evaluates the disclosed witness and attributes fault. Four OVC instances (Access, Identity, Conformance, Feature) are implemented in Solidity; gas costs are measured on a 6.41 MB 3DBenchy file and projected to Ethereum, Arbitrum, and opBNB at sizes up to 50 MB. The main reported results are the cost of demand publication, binding, and fully contested disputes. The central conceptual claim is that the on-chain ciphertext C = G⊕K provides confidentiality on the honest path, so the design is readable only by the selected Provider.

Significance. If the protocol's confidentiality claim were sound, this would be a valuable contribution: it gives a concrete, measured instantiation of optimistic adjudication for manufacturing claims, with honest-path privacy and dispute-time verifiability. The paper is unusually transparent about its measurement methodology, including chunk selection, per-byte gas, congestion assumptions, and reproducible code/data availability; those parts are internally consistent. The cost projections and the segmentation analysis are informative. However, the central confidentiality property is false as implemented. The paper's own §3.6.1 specifies a 32-byte repeating-key XOR cipher, and §3.4 publishes the resulting ciphertext on-chain while claiming that it 'discloses nothing without K.' Since G-code is highly structured ASCII with known slicer headers, the key is recoverable by known-plaintext or ciphertext-only analysis. This breaks the 'conditionally confidential bidding' premise on which the protocol's significance rests.

major comments (3)

[§3.4 and §3.6.1] The load-bearing confidentiality claim is false. Section 3.4 states that publishing C=G⊕K 'discloses nothing without K' and that K is released only to the selected Provider. Section 3.6.1 specifies the implementation: 'OVC-Identity applies the 32-byte key cyclically, G_i ⊕ K_(i mod 32) = C_i.' This is a 32-byte repeating-key XOR over ASCII G-code. The paper itself shows the known slicer header (e.g., '; PrusaSlicer 2.2.0-alpha3' in Fig. 2a), and G-code is dominated by repeated commands like 'G1 X... Y... E...'. An observer holding the on-chain ciphertext can recover all 32 key bytes using known plaintext, and the per-position plaintext distribution is skewed enough that ciphertext-only frequency analysis is practical. Since C is posted at Bidding, any party—not only the selected Provider—can reconstruct G before Binding. The claim in §5.2 that 'The plaintext becomes readable only to the
[§5.2 and §5.4] The limitation discussion does not acknowledge that the ciphertext itself is trivially invertible. §5.4 correctly notes that the commitment scheme is binding but not hiding and that the plaintext-hash commitments of OVC-Conformance and OVC-Feature admit dictionary confirmation. But the more severe problem is that OVC-Identity's cipher, a repeating-key XOR over structured G-code, is not a secure encryption scheme at all. The paper's statement in §5.2 that a disputed reveal is the 'deliberate price' of proving a contested claim assumes that before any dispute the design is private except to the selected Provider. In reality, the public Demand already leaks the design. This is not a marginal parameter choice or an artifact of a particular slicer; it is the encryption primitive used to implement the protocol's central promise.
[§3.3.2 / Eq. (6)] The on-chain verification predicate V_Identity checks G⊕K=C, which forces the protocol to use XOR-compatible encryption. This design constraint is what leads to the insecure repeating-key XOR. A secure replacement (e.g., a stream cipher with a key-derived keystream, or an authenticated cipher with on-chain verifiable decryption) would change the cost measurements and the gas model substantially. Thus the reported per-byte costs in Tables 13 and 17, and the claim that OVC-Identity is among the cheapest predicates, are measurements of an insecure construction, not of a confidentiality-preserving OVC. The framework's cost conclusions cannot be separated from this cryptographic choice.

minor comments (5)

[§3.4, Eq. (9)] The Demand tuple is written D = ⟨c_conf, f_claim, C⟩, but §3.3.1 and Table 3 state that the Demand also commits artifacts such as eH(G), eH(C), and eH(G). Please align the formal notation with the implementation description.
[Tables 13–16] The column header 'Gas (G)' is confusing because G is used both for gas and for the G-code artifact. Use e.g. 'Gas (Mgas)' or 'Gas (Ggas)' consistently.
[§4.4.5 / Table 17] The per-instance shares are useful, but the table would be clearer if it identified that the OVC-Conformance measured figure reflects an early short-circuit on real slicer output, while the synthetic bound is the one used for the 'worst-case' discussion. The current text explains this, but the table itself invites over-reading.
[§5.4] The discussion of artifact-size leakage says padding to fixed-size buckets 'would close it at a proportional increase in the dominant honest-path cost.' Since the dominant cost is the on-chain ciphertext upload, the proportional increase would be substantial; consider quantifying the trade-off or softening the wording.
[§3.6.2] The statement that all gas figures are 'conservative upper bounds' because the optimizer is disabled is only true for gas, not for the confidentiality analysis; the gas-cost direction is clear, but the wording could be read as implying the measurements are conservative in every respect.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the OVC derivation is definitional but self-contained; the main reviewer concern (weak XOR cipher) is a security flaw, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The OVC primitive (Eqs. 1-4) defines a commitment c=H(w) and a verification function V(w,c)=I[H(w)=c]∧P(w,c); the claimed property that a challenged dishonest claim is exposed follows directly from this definition and from the deterministic predicate, not from any fitted parameter. The four instances (Eqs. 5-8) are explicit constructions, and their gas costs are measured directly on a real 6.41 MB artifact via eth_estimateGas; reported Ethereum/Arbitrum/opBNB costs are arithmetic projections (Eq. 15) with stated gas prices, block times, and β=1.5, not outputs of a fitted model. The operating chunk c* (Eq. 14) is a measured engineering choice, and Section 4.4.4 explicitly separates structural results from implementation-specific constants. Self-citations ([14], [15], [48]) appear only in background and data-availability contexts and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The manuscript itself flags the real boundaries in Section 5.4: binding-not-hiding commitments, dictionary confirmation for plaintext-hash instances, and public artifact size; these are candid limitations rather than circular reductions. The reviewer's concern that C=G⊕K with a 32-byte repeating key (§3.6.1) does not conceal structured G-code from an observer who holds C is a serious correctness/security flaw in the confidentiality premise, but it is not a circular step: no 'prediction' is obtained from that assumption by construction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol introduces no new physical or cryptographic entities: it reuses hash functions, XOR, and public-key encryption. The free parameters are the economic and timing assumptions used in the projections, all explicitly stated. The critical ad hoc assumption is that a repeating-key XOR of a structured artifact provides confidentiality, which it does not. That assumption is the main burden on the central claim.

free parameters (4)

Representative token prices = ETH $3,000; BNB $600
The cost projections use these as representative values over a 12-month range. Absolute costs scale linearly with token price, and the ranking is invariant, but the specific dollar figures depend on these choices.
Gas price assumptions = Ethereum 0.5 Gwei; Arbitrum 0.02 Gwei; opBNB 0.001 Gwei
These are representative values used to convert gas to USD. They are not fitted to data but chosen as typical mid-range values; the paper does not provide a sensitivity analysis beyond noting linear scaling.
Inclusion factor β and congestion factor δ = β = 1.5 blocks; δ ∈ [1,4] for Ethereum, δ ≈ 1 for rollups
Chosen by hand to model median inclusion and congestion. Durations are reported as bands, so the choice is explicit, but it still shapes the time estimates.
Fill factor ϕ = 0.95
Engineering choice to leave headroom below the block gas limit. The paper states any other choice can be applied to the same measurements, so it is a free parameter rather than a measured constant.

assumptions (4)

standard math Keccak-256 is collision-resistant
The commitment scheme c = H(w) and all binding properties rely on collision resistance. This is a standard cryptographic assumption, stated in Section 3.2.
domain assumption The underlying blockchain provides consensus integrity and deterministic execution
The protocol assumes transactions are final and that the smart contract executes deterministically. This is stated in Section 3.1 and is typical of blockchain work.
ad hoc to paper The ciphertext C = G⊕K with a 32-byte repeating key conceals the plaintext
This assumption is not justified and is false: G-code is highly structured multi-megabyte ASCII, so a repeating-key XOR is trivially defeated by known-plaintext or ciphertext-only attacks. The paper claims in Section 3.4 that 'Publishing C discloses nothing without K', but the construction does not provide that guarantee.
domain assumption The feature function f(G) computed on-chain equals the material consumption providers use for pricing
The protocol only checks that f(G) equals the committed f_claim; it does not validate that f matches any external definition of material consumption. The paper defines f as the sum of extrusion increments, which is a reasonable proxy but is not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimistic Verifiable Claims: A Blockchain Protocol for Conditionally Confidential Bidding in Decentralized Manufacturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBWXFURY

@misc{pith2026260725517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimistic Verifiable Claims: A Blockchain Protocol for Conditionally Confidential Bidding in Decentralized Manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBWXFURY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25517}
}

abstract

Decentralized manufacturing faces a pre-contractual impasse: a Provider cannot price a service accurately without inspecting the design file, yet the Consumer cannot share that file without exposing intellectual property. We introduce the Optimistic Verifiable Claim (OVC), a blockchain protocol that lets a Consumer publish a verifiable claim about a concealed design (such as the material it consumes) and a Provider price and bid on it without seeing the design. The claim is committed when the service is posted and stands unless the selected Provider challenges it; a challenge triggers a deterministic on-chain check that exposes any dishonesty, and the design is disclosed only to settle a dispute, never on the honest path. We implement four checks (authorized key access, delivery-channel integrity, syntactic conformance, and declared material consumption) in Solidity and measure them on a real 6.41 MB G-code file, the 3DBenchy, across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and opBNB. Every service incurs the cost of posting the encrypted design, with or without a dispute. For the 3DBenchy, the no-dispute outcome costs \$7,207 in up to 9 hours on Ethereum, \$288 in 3 min on Arbitrum, and \$2.87 in 2 min on opBNB, and a fully contested dispute costs \$49,660 in up to 57 hours on Ethereum, \$1,988 in 19 min on Arbitrum, and \$19.73 in 13 min on opBNB. Costs and times grow with size: for a 50 MB industrial design, an undisputed service reaches \$56,173 and up to 3 days on Ethereum against \$22.36 and 16 min on opBNB, and a fully contested dispute reaches \$488,440 over up to 18 days on Ethereum against \$195 and 1.6 hours on opBNB. Of the four, the material-consumption check is the costliest, its predicate being the most expensive to evaluate on-chain. OVC makes confidential, claim-based bidding economically feasible on Arbitrum and opBNB, but not on Ethereum at industrial scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25517 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Finite state machine of the atomic OVC primitive. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A representative manufacturing artifact (3DBenchy, PLA, 0.15 mm layers, Prusa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Full OVC protocol experience across the Bidding, Binding, and Specification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Specific cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Specific cost ∇G against chunk size under segmentation. All points are measured; the larger chunk sizes require a node with raised gas limits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Composition of the dispute increment for the 3DBenchy (6.41 MB) at Ethereum’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

F. Tao, L. Zhang, V. C. Venkatesh, Y. Luo, Y. Cheng, Cloud man- ufacturing: A computing and service-oriented manufacturing model, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Jour- nal of Engineering Manufacture 225 (10) (2011) 1969–1976. doi: 10.1177/0954405411405575. 54

work page doi:10.1177/0954405411405575 2011
[2]

A. S. Lowe, Distributed Manufacturing: Make Things Where You Need Them, Management for Professionals Part F521 (2019) 37–50. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97788-1_4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97788-1_4 2019
[3]

C. Yu, X. Jiang, S. Yu, C. Yang, Blockchain-based shared manufacturing in support of cyber physical systems: concept, framework, and operation, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 64 (Aug. 2020).doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101931

arXiv 2020
[4]

Angrish, B

A. Angrish, B. Craver, M. Hasan, B. Starly, A Case Study for Blockchain in Manufacturing: "fabRec": A Prototype for Peer-to-Peer Network of Manufacturing Nodes, Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 1180–1192. arXiv:1804.01083,doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.154

arXiv 2018
[5]

Bodkhe, S

U. Bodkhe, S. Tanwar, K. Parekh, P. Khanpara, S. Tyagi, N. Kumar, M. Alazab, Blockchain for Industry 4.0: A comprehensive review, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 79764–79800.doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988579

arXiv 2020
[6]

Yampolskiy, T

M. Yampolskiy, T. R. Andel, J. T. McDonald, W. B. Glisson, A. Yasin- sac, Intellectual property protection in Additive Layer Manufacturing: Requirements for secure outsourcing, ACM International Conference Pro- ceeding Series 12-Decembe (dec 2014).doi:10.1145/2689702.2689709

arXiv 2014
[7]

K. J. Arrow, Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for in- vention, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1962, pp. 609–626

1962
[8]

Lanza, K

G. Lanza, K. Ferdows, S. Kara, D. Mourtzis, G. Schuh, J. Váncza, L. Wang, H. P. Wiendahl, Global production networks: Design and operation, CIRP Annals 68 (2) (2019) 823–841.doi:10.1016/j.cirp .2019.05.008. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00078506 19301659

doi:10.1016/j.cirp 2019

Show all 48 references

[9]

J. Chen, G. Q. Huang, J. Q. Wang, C. Yang, A cooperative approach to service booking and scheduling in cloud manufacturing, European Journal of Operational Research 273 (3) (2019) 861–873.doi:10.1016/ j.ejor.2018.09.007. 55 URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S037...

2019
[10]

URL /doi/pdf/10.1002/spe.2753https://onlinelibrary.wiley

Y.Fan, X.Lin, W.Liang, J.Wang, G.Tan, X.Lei, L.Jing, TraceChain: A blockchain-based scheme to protect data confidentiality and traceability, Software - Practice and Experience 52 (1) (2022) 115–129.doi:10.100 2/spe.2753. URL /doi/pdf/10.1002/spe.2753https://onlinelibrary.wiley...

2022 doi
[11]

Zhang, A

J. Zhang, A. Datta, Blockchain-enabled data governance for privacy- preserved sharing of confidential data, PeerJ Computer Science 10 (2024) e2581.doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2581. URLhttps://peerj.com/articles/cs-2581

2024 doi
[12]

Asokan, V

N. Asokan, V. Shoup, M. Waidner, Optimistic fair exchange of digital signatures, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 18 (4) (2000) 593–610.doi:10.1109/49.839935. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/839935

2000 doi
[13]

Zareiyan, M

B. Zareiyan, M. Korjani, Blockchain Technology for Global Decentralized Manufacturing: Challenges and Solutions for Supply Chain in Fourth Industrial Revolution, International Journal of Advanced Robotics and Automation 3 (2) (2018) 1–10.doi:10.15226/2473-3032/3/2/00135

2018 doi
[14]

F. Lupi, M. G. Cimino, T. Berlec, F. A. Galatolo, M. Corn, N. Rožman, A. Rossi, M. Lanzetta, Blockchain-based Shared Additive Manufacturing, Computers and Industrial Engineering 183 (2023) 109497.doi:10.101 6/j.cie.2023.109497. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article...

2023
[15]

Rožman, J

N. Rožman, J. Diaci, M. Corn, Scalable framework for blockchain-based shared manufacturing, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 71 (Oct. 2021).doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102139

2021
[16]

Grünewald, D

S. Grünewald, D. Junghanns, F. Otte, T. Klein, T. Bauernhansl, A review of blockchain applications in additive manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing 67 (2023) 102375.doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.102375. 56

2023
[17]

Aghamohammadzadeh, O

E. Aghamohammadzadeh, O. Fatahi Valilai, A novel cloud manufac- turing service composition platform enabled by Blockchain technology, International Journal of Production Research 58 (17) (2020) 5280–5298. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1715507

2020
[18]

C. Yu, L. Zhang, W. Zhao, S. Zhang, A blockchain-based service composition architecture in cloud manufacturing, International Jour- nal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 33 (7) (2020) 701–715. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2019.1571234

2020
[19]

X. Zhu, J. Shi, F. Xie, R. Song, Pricing strategy and system performance in a cloud-based manufacturing system built on blockchain technology, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 31 (8) (2020) 1985–2002. doi: 10.1007/s10845-020-01548-3

2020 doi
[20]

Holland, J

M. Holland, J. Stjepandic, C. Nigischer, Intellectual Property Protection of 3D Print Supply Chain with Blockchain Technology, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, ICE/ITMC 2018 - Proceedings (Aug. 2018).doi:10.1109/ICE.2018.8 436315

2018 doi
[21]

Zhang, E

L. Zhang, E. Al, Using Blockchain to Protect 3D Printing from Unau- thorized Model Tampering, Applied Sciences 12 (15) (2022) 7947. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/15/7947

2022
[22]

Papakostas, A

N. Papakostas, A. Newell, V. Hargaden, A novel paradigm for managing the product development process utilising blockchain technology princi- ples, CIRP Annals 68 (1) (2019) 137–140.doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2019. 04.039

2019 doi
[23]

Klöckner, S

M. Klöckner, S. Kurpjuweit, C. Velu, S. M. Wagner, Does Blockchain for 3D Printing Offer Opportunities for Business Model Innovation?, Research Technology Management 63 (4) (2020) 18–27.doi:10.1080/ 08956308.2020.1762444

2020
[24]

Kurpjuweit, C

S. Kurpjuweit, C. G. Schmidt, M. Klöckner, S. M. Wagner, Blockchain in Additive Manufacturing and its Impact on Supply Chains, Journal of Business Logistics 42 (1) (2021) 46–70.doi:10.1111/jbl.12231. 57

2021 doi
[25]

URLhttps://www.secured3d.com/

Secured3D, Secured3D: DRM and Streaming for 3D Print Protection (2022). URLhttps://www.secured3d.com/

2022
[26]

URLhttps://www.replique.io/news/secure-digital-inventory

Replique, Replique launches secure digital inventory with encrypted 3D file streaming (2023). URLhttps://www.replique.io/news/secure-digital-inventory

2023
[27]

URLhttps://www.hubs.com/security-and-confidentiality/

Hubs, How Hubs Protects Your Intellectual Property (2024). URLhttps://www.hubs.com/security-and-confidentiality/

2024
[28]

H. K. Chan, M. Guo, F. Zeng, Y. Chen, T. Xiao, J. Griffin, Blockchain- enabled authentication platform for the protection of 3D printing intel- lectual property: a conceptual framework study, Enterprise Information Systems 17 (11) (2023).doi:10.1080/17517575.2023.2180776

2023
[29]

R. Hu, Z. Ma, L. Li, P. Zuo, X. Li, J. Wei, S. Liu, An Access Control Scheme Based on Blockchain and Ciphertext Policy-Attribute Based Encryption, Sensors 23 (19) (2023).doi:10.3390/s23198038

2023 doi
[30]

Sasikumar, L

A. Sasikumar, L. Ravi, M. Devarajan, A. Selvalakshmi, A. T. Almak- toom, A. S. Almazyad, G. Xiong, A. W. Mohamed, Blockchain-Assisted Hierarchical Attribute-Based Encryption Scheme for Secure Informa- tion Sharing in Industrial Internet of Things, IEEE Access 12 (2024) 12586–1...

2024
[31]

Kryston, E

M. Kryston, E. Marangone, C. Di Ciccio, D. Friolo, E. N. Nemmi, M. Samory, M. Spina, D. Venturi, I. Weber, MARTSIA: A Tool for Confidential Data Exchange via Public Blockchain, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 557 LNBIP (2025) 173–180.doi:10.1 007/978-3-031-945...

2025 doi
[32]

Stodt, C

J. Stodt, C. Reich, Data Confidentiality in P2P Communication and Smart Contracts of Blockchain in Industry 4.0, Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) (2020) 01–10doi:10.5121/csit.2 020.101001. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.14195http://dx.doi.org/10.51 21/csit.20...

2020 arXiv
[33]

Petsiuk, J

A. Petsiuk, J. M. Pearce, Towards smart monitored AM: Open source in-situ layer-wise 3D printing image anomaly detection using histograms of oriented gradients and a physics-based rendering engine, Additive Manufacturing 52 (2022).doi:10.1016/j.addma.2022.102690

2022
[34]

Olaoye, A

F. Olaoye, A. Gracias, P. Broklyn, In-Situ Monitoring and Quality Con- trol in Metal Additive Manufacturing, EasyChair Preprint 2024 (14210) (2024). URLhttps://easychair.org/publications/preprint/HFxrD

2024
[35]

M. H. B. Tasneem, G. T. Amer, Hybrid Physical-Virtual Digital Twin System for Additive Manufacturing, ResearchGate (2024). URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380677146_Hyb rid_Physical-Virtual_Digital_Twin_System_for_Additive_Manu facturing

2024
[36]

Z. Shi, B. Oskolkov, W. Tian, C. Kan, C. Liu, Sensor Data Protection ThroughIntegrationofBlockchainandCamouflagedEncryptioninCyber- Physical Manufacturing Systems, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 24 (7) (2024).doi:10.1115/1.4063859

2024 doi
[37]

E. N. Tas, I. A. Seres, Y. Zhang, M. Melczer, M. Kelkar, J. Bonneau, V. Nikolaenko, Atomic and Fair Data Exchange via Blockchain, in: CCS 2024 - Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 3227–3241.doi: 10.1145/3658644.3690248

2024
[38]

J. L. Ferrer-Gomila, M. F. Hinarejos, A. P. Isern-Deyà, G. F. Chévez- Alvarado, A three-step Bc-optimistic blockchain-based contract signing protocol, International Journal of Information Security 25 (2) (2026). doi:10.1007/s10207-026-01215-3. URL https://www.researchgate.net/...

2026
[39]

Malik, E

M. Malik, E. al, Supply Chain Framework Synergizing ZKPs and Blockchain, Dergipark Article File (2022). URL https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/5554 449 59

2022
[40]

L. Zhao, E. Al, zkCNN: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Convolutional Neural Network Predictions and Accuracy, ResearchGate (2025). URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356209000_zkC NN_Zero_Knowledge_Proofs_for_Convolutional_Neural_Network_ Predictions_and_Accuracy

2025
[41]

M. Cong, S. S. M. Chow, S. M. Yiu, T. H. Yuen, Scalable zkSNARKs for Matrix Computations: A Generic Framework for Verifiable Deep Learning (2025). URLhttps://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1646

2025
[42]

J. Wang, E. al, A Systematic Comparison of zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs, Cryptology ePrint Archive (2025). URLhttps://arxiv.org/html/2512.10020v1

2025
[43]

Kuznetsov, Y

O. Kuznetsov, Y. Khavikova, V. Bushkov, D. Shchytov, N. Mormul, Performance Analysis of Groth16 zkSNARK: Systematic Benchmarking with Circom-snarkjs, International Journal of Computing 24 (4) (2025) 645–660.doi:10.47839/ijc.24.4.4329

2025 doi
[44]

S. Reno, K. Roy, Navigating the blockchain trilemma: A review of recent advances and emerging solutions in decentralization, security, and scalability optimization, Computers, Materials & Continua 84 (2) (2025) 2061–2119.doi:10.32604/cmc.2025.066366

2025
[45]

Buterin, E

V. Buterin, E. Conner, R. Dudley, M. Slipper, I. Norden, A. Bakhta, EIP-1559: Fee market change for ETH 1.0 chain, Ethereum Improvement Proposals, no. 1559, accessed 2026-07-20 (2019). URLhttps://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1559

2026
[46]

Roughgarden, Transaction fee mechanism design for the Ethereum blockchain: An economic analysis of EIP-1559 (2020).arXiv:2012.008 54

T. Roughgarden, Transaction fee mechanism design for the Ethereum blockchain: An economic analysis of EIP-1559 (2020).arXiv:2012.008 54. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00854

2020 arXiv
[47]

Y. Liu, Y. Lu, K. Nayak, F. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Empirical analysis of EIP-1559: Transaction fees, waiting time, and consensus security, in: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’22), ACM, 2022, pp. 2099–2113.doi:10.11...

2022
[48]

M. Corn, N. Rožman, P. Podržaj, Optimistic verifiable claims (OVC): Reproducibility package, Zenodo, concept DOI; resolves to the latest archived version (2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.20794987. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20794987 61

2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F. Tao, L. Zhang, V. C. Venkatesh, Y. Luo, Y. Cheng, Cloud man- ufacturing: A computing and service-oriented manufacturing model, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Jour- nal of Engineering Manufacture 225 (10) (2011) 1969–1976. doi: 10.1177/0954405411405575. 54

work page doi:10.1177/0954405411405575 2011

[2] [2]

A. S. Lowe, Distributed Manufacturing: Make Things Where You Need Them, Management for Professionals Part F521 (2019) 37–50. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97788-1_4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97788-1_4 2019

[3] [3]

C. Yu, X. Jiang, S. Yu, C. Yang, Blockchain-based shared manufacturing in support of cyber physical systems: concept, framework, and operation, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 64 (Aug. 2020).doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101931

arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Angrish, B

A. Angrish, B. Craver, M. Hasan, B. Starly, A Case Study for Blockchain in Manufacturing: "fabRec": A Prototype for Peer-to-Peer Network of Manufacturing Nodes, Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018) 1180–1192. arXiv:1804.01083,doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.154

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Bodkhe, S

U. Bodkhe, S. Tanwar, K. Parekh, P. Khanpara, S. Tyagi, N. Kumar, M. Alazab, Blockchain for Industry 4.0: A comprehensive review, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 79764–79800.doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988579

arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

Yampolskiy, T

M. Yampolskiy, T. R. Andel, J. T. McDonald, W. B. Glisson, A. Yasin- sac, Intellectual property protection in Additive Layer Manufacturing: Requirements for secure outsourcing, ACM International Conference Pro- ceeding Series 12-Decembe (dec 2014).doi:10.1145/2689702.2689709

arXiv 2014

[7] [7]

K. J. Arrow, Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for in- vention, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1962, pp. 609–626

1962

[8] [8]

Lanza, K

G. Lanza, K. Ferdows, S. Kara, D. Mourtzis, G. Schuh, J. Váncza, L. Wang, H. P. Wiendahl, Global production networks: Design and operation, CIRP Annals 68 (2) (2019) 823–841.doi:10.1016/j.cirp .2019.05.008. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00078506 19301659

doi:10.1016/j.cirp 2019