Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

A Privacy-Preserving, Accountable and Spam-Resilient Geo-Marketplace

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a blockchain-based geo-marketplace in which buyers search encrypted location tags, owners are bound to their advertised geo-tags by digital commitments, and spam is priced out by transaction fees—and reports the system…

desk verdict Solid systems paper with real experiments, but 'spam-resilient' is asserted rather than shown: at $0.02 per 20-object commitment, flooding is cheap. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00299 v3 pith:JKGHMWXW submitted 2019-09-01 cs.CR

Kien Nguyen , Gabriel Ghinita , Muhammad Naveed , Cyrus Shahabi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords locationprivacysearchableencryptionblockchaingeo-marketplacevectorcommitmentshiddenspatialrangequeriesdatamarketplace
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

This paper proposes a marketplace where people can sell geo-tagged data such as photos, traffic measurements, or air-quality readings without exposing the exact location of the data. The authors' goal is to show that three requirements can be met at once: owners' locations stay private during search, owners cannot later change an advertised geo-tag, and flooding the system with fake advertisements is not economically worthwhile. Their design encrypts location metadata with searchable encryption, pins a compact cryptographic commitment of each geo-tag to a blockchain, and relies on blockchain write fees as a spam disincentive. Two instantiations are built and measured, one with a trusted curator that sees all plaintext locations and one with a trusted authority that only issues search tokens. Experiments on real check-in data indicate practical query times and on-chain costs of about 1.1 percent of a typical transaction, which is the evidence for the paper's central feasibility claim.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the best-range-cover binary-tree encoding. A coordinate is represented by the leaf-to-root path in a binary tree over the spatial domain, and every node on that path is treated as a keyword for the object. A buyer's range query is decomposed into the minimal set of tree nodes whose union covers the range, and in two dimensions each piece becomes a conjunction of one x-tree keyword and one y-tree keyword. This transforms spatial matching into conjunctive keyword search, which the HXT scheme executes in sub-linear time, and with the square-query restriction it also lets each location be compressed into short hidden-vector-encryption attribute vectors. The same encoding is what carries the financial argument, because it determines keyword counts, ciphertext sizes, and the number of bilinear-pairing evaluations per query.

What would settle it

Set the hidden-vector-encryption authority to collude with a buyer and issue search tokens for every cell in the spatial grid; if the matching results allow the buyer to reconstruct which cell each object falls in, the claimed location-privacy goal is falsified under the paper's own threat model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that spatial range queries can be encoded as ordinary conjunctive keyword searches over encrypted data, and that this encoding makes a privacy-preserving geo-marketplace feasible. Locations are mapped to paths in binary domain trees; each path node becomes a keyword, and a buyer's range is covered by a small set of tree-node pairs. This allows symmetric searchable encryption to evaluate ranges sub-linearly with an index, and, after restricting queries to square aligned ranges, allows hidden vector encryption to evaluate a match with one short attribute vector per tree level. On top of this encoding, vector commitments on a blockchain bind each owner to her advertised geo-tag without disclosing it, and transaction fees make fake bulk advertisements costly. The paper concludes that the measured query times and roughly $0.11 per-purchase cost validate the system, and that the two designs offer a genuine trade-off between trust placed in a central party and computational overhead.

Load-bearing premise

Location privacy rests on a trusted party: in the symmetric design that party sees every plaintext location, and in the asymmetric design it holds the key that can generate search tokens for any range, so if it is compromised or colludes with a buyer, owners' locations can be reconstructed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the performance measurements are representative, a working geo-marketplace could let buyers run encrypted range searches over hundreds of thousands of objects in under twelve seconds, and in under four seconds when query placement is restricted.
  • Owners could sell data without the buyer ever learning the precise geo-tag until purchase, while the buyer retains an on-chain commitment that proves whether the delivered object matched the advertised location.
  • Spam would be governed by economics: each batched commitment costs about two cents, and a refundable deposit policy can raise the cost of flooding without taxing legitimate users.
  • The hidden-vector-encryption design removes any party that sees plaintext locations, and its linear scan parallelizes almost linearly across nodes, so query cost can in principle be traded against compute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A step the paper leaves implicit is that the keyword-encoding trick is not tied to geography: the same tree-to-keyword mapping could apply to any low-dimensional attribute, such as time windows or price ranges, giving a generic encrypted-predicate marketplace.
  • The paper treats the initial geo-tag as truthful and lists location proofs as orthogonal; a natural testable extension is to couple each commitment with an external proof-of-location oracle and measure the added latency and cost before deployment.
  • Because the hidden-vector-encryption authority can in principle issue tokens for every cell, a practical deployment would want either multiple authorities or audited token issuance; the paper mentions multiple authorities but does not quantify the privacy gained by splitting trust.
  • The spam-resilience claim could be stress-tested by simulating a rational attacker who optimizes batch size and deposit thresholds to maximize expected profit, then checking whether the stated fees still dissuade flooding.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a blockchain-based geo-data marketplace in which data owners advertise geo-tagged objects without revealing plaintext locations. Two designs are presented: a symmetric searchable encryption (SSE/HXT) design with a trusted curator that builds an encrypted index, and an asymmetric Hidden Vector Encryption (HVE) design with a trusted authority that issues search tokens. Accountability is provided by storing vector commitments on the blockchain, and spam-resilience is argued from the cost of on-chain writes, optional deposits, and rate limits. The experimental evaluation on the Gowalla dataset measures index build time, query time, ciphertext size, token generation, and on-chain gas costs, concluding that queries take at most a few seconds and that the financial overhead is about 1.1% of a $10 transaction.

Significance. If the paper's claims held, this would be a useful systems contribution: it is, to my knowledge, one of the first attempts to combine searchable encryption, vector commitments, and blockchain for geo-marketplaces, and it provides two concrete trust-performance tradeoffs with measurements on a real dataset. The paper's strengths include concrete implementation of both designs, the use of real location data, and explicit gas-cost measurements for the main on-chain operations. However, the two headline non-privacy properties, spam-resilience and accountability, are argued much more weakly than the corresponding performance claims, and the privacy claim is conditional on trust assumptions that are stated only informally. The experimental section supports the performance claims well, but it does not test the security or spam-resilience claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Tables 3-4] The spam-resilience claim is load-bearing but not supported by the reported economics. The paper argues in §4.3 that the non-negligible cost of blockchain writes deters spam, yet Table 4 reports $0.02 per commitment, and §4.3 states that a commitment can cover a batch of 20 objects, i.e., $0.001 per advertised object, with deposits refundable after a timeout. An adversary can therefore inject 100,000 fake ciphertext/commitment pairs into the HVE marketplace for roughly $100. Because the HVE design has no index and requires matching every token against every ciphertext (§4.2), each fake object imposes real query latency on all buyers. The paper provides no attacker model, no bound on the number of spurious advertisements the fee schedule can absorb, and no experiment in Section 5 measuring query time under injected spam. The abstract's claim that the system is 'spam-resilient' is not established at the documented price levels.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 3.3] The privacy guarantee is stated informally and is conditional on strong trust assumptions. In the SSE design (§3.2), the trusted curator sees the plaintext location of every object; in the HVE design (§3.3), the paper states 'We assume that the TA is non-colluding' and the TA can generate search tokens for arbitrary ranges. The paper does not define an adversary model for the composed protocol, nor does it state which party (TC, TA, buyers, blockchain observers) can learn what, and under which failure assumptions. If the TC is compromised or the TA colludes with buyers, an owner's location is reconstructible. Since the title and abstract promise location privacy, the paper should either provide a formal privacy model with explicit trust assumptions and leakage bounds, or qualify the claim.
  3. [Section 5, Tables 3-4] The financial-cost conclusion is based only on on-chain gas cost and omits the off-chain storage cost that the paper itself identifies as part of the system's expense. Section 5 reports HXT index sizes between 1 GB and 5.5 GB, and the HVE design stores a ciphertext for every object, but the 'financial cost' calculation in Table 4 and the related text counts only owner registration, commitment submission, offer, and withdrawal. Since the abstract claims 'reasonable financial overhead', the evaluation should state the storage cost per object or index and include it in the total-cost estimate, or explicitly scope the claim to on-chain costs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The example for the 2D range query is garbled: the expression '(N x2,3 ∧ N y2,3) ∨ (N x2,3 ∧ N y2,3) ∨ ··· ∨ (N x2,7 ∧ N y6)' repeats the first conjunct and the final term appears to be incorrect. It should enumerate all cross-products of the covering nodes from the two dimensions.
  2. [Section 2 and reference [10]] 'InterPlanet File System' should read 'InterPlanetary File System' (IPFS).
  3. [Sections 3-5] The prose contains several awkward or incorrect phrases, e.g., 'Sec. 4.1 discussed search using SSE', 'Token size of is also negligible', and 'the counter of Steps 4-8 in Fig. 2 is less by one compared to their SSE counterparts'. These should be edited for clarity.
  4. [Section 3.2] The paper explicitly states that 'location proofs are orthogonal', which means the system only prevents later alteration of geo-tags, not initial false reporting. This limitation should be stated in the introduction or abstract where accountability is claimed, so readers do not over-interpret the accountability guarantee.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the system composes external cryptographic primitives and reports measurements, with no prediction that reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Its three advertised properties are implemented by composing standard, externally defined primitives: HXT searchable encryption [23] for SSE, HVE [4] for asymmetric search, and vector commitments [7]/blockchain for accountability. The only author-self-citation is [14] (Ghinita and Rughinis, CODASPY 2014), which is presented as prior HVE encoding work that the paper explicitly contrasts with ('Previous work that focused on location-based queries on top of HVE-encrypted data considered hierarchical or Gray encodings [14]'); the paper's own encoding is built from the same best-range-cover domain mapping used in its SSE design, and no load-bearing claim is imported from [14]. The evaluation in Section 5 is a benchmark of measured latency, storage, gas, and USD costs on the Gowalla dataset; these measurements are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and the claimed 1.1% transaction fee follows by arithmetic from reported gas costs and a stated $10 transaction value. The stated limitations in the manuscript (non-colluding TA in Section 3.3, truthful initial geo-tags and 'location proofs are orthogonal' in Section 3.2, and the linear-scan cost of HVE) are honest assumptions and design trade-offs, not circular steps. The spam-resilience argument is an economic-incentive argument based on measured on-chain write costs; while its strength is debatable, it is not circular because the paper does not define spam-resilience as 'having a positive write fee' and then conclude that the fee deters spam; it reports the fee and separately argues deterrence. Therefore no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no self-citation is load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central architecture is composed of existing cryptographic and blockchain primitives. The only hand-chosen numbers are experimental parameters and security levels, not fitted values used to derive the result. The load-bearing assumptions are the stated trust models (non-colluding TC/TA), the exclusion of proof-of-location, and the economic efficacy of blockchain fees against spam.

free parameters (4)
  • Grid granularity G (log L) = 10, 12, 14, 16
    Chosen to represent different precisions for snapping locations to cells. Affects index size, query time, and ciphertext size, but it is an experimental setting rather than a fitted parameter.
  • Maximum tree height hmax = 0, 6, 7
    Limits the size of query ranges and the number of keywords per object. This is a design choice that trades flexibility for performance, not a fitted value.
  • HVE key length = 768, 1024, 1536, 2048 bits
    Security level for the HVE instantiation. The paper notes 1024-bit is considered sufficient for individual data; these are standard security settings, not fitted to data.
  • Query range sizes = 400x550, 800x1100, 1600x2200 meters
    Randomly generated ranges used to evaluate query performance. They are representative inputs, not fitted to make results favorable.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math HXT searchable encryption is secure and supports conjunctive queries with the claimed leakage
    The paper relies on the HXT scheme of Lai et al. [23] for the SSE design. Security and functionality are taken from that publication, not re-derived here.
  • standard math Hidden vector encryption (HVE) is secure and supports conjunctive equality and range queries
    The HVE construction from Boneh-Waters [4] is used in the asymmetric design. The paper assumes its correctness and security.
  • standard math Vector commitments are binding and hiding
    The accountability mechanism relies on the Catalano-Fiore vector commitment scheme [7]. Security properties are assumed from the cited work.
  • domain assumption The trusted curator (SSE) or trusted authority (HVE) is non-colluding
    Explicitly stated in Section 3.2 and 3.3. The privacy guarantee does not hold against a compromised or colluding central entity.
  • domain assumption Owners initially report truthful geo-tags; proof-of-location is out of scope
    Stated in Section 3.2: 'location proofs are orthogonal to our approach'. The system only prevents post-publication alteration, not initial falsification.
  • domain assumption Blockchain write fees are sufficient to deter spam
    Section 4.3 argues that the cost of on-chain commitments creates a disincentive. This is an economic assumption without formal analysis of adversarial incentives.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Privacy-Preserving, Accountable and Spam-Resilient Geo-Marketplace." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JKGHMWXW

@misc{pith2026190900299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Privacy-Preserving, Accountable and Spam-Resilient Geo-Marketplace},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JKGHMWXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00299}
}
read the original abstract

Mobile devices with rich features can record videos, traffic parameters or air quality readings along user trajectories. Although such data may be valuable, users are seldom rewarded for collecting them. Emerging digital marketplaces allow owners to advertise their data to interested buyers. We focus on geo-marketplaces, where buyers search data based on geo-tags. Such marketplaces present significant challenges. First, if owners upload data with revealed geo-tags, they expose themselves to serious privacy risks. Second, owners must be accountable for advertised data, and must not be allowed to subsequently alter geo-tags. Third, such a system may be vulnerable to intensive spam activities, where dishonest owners flood the system with fake advertisements. We propose a geo-marketplace that addresses all these concerns. We employ searchable encryption, digital commitments, and blockchain to protect the location privacy of owners while at the same time incorporating accountability and spam-resilience mechanisms. We implement a prototype with two alternative designs that obtain distinct trade-offs between trust assumptions and performance. Our experiments on real location data show that one can achieve the above design goals with practical performance and reasonable financial overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00299 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SSE-based System Workflow collusion is limited. The disadvantage of HVE is that it does not allow the construction of an index, so a linear search is required. 3.1 Evaluation Metrics We consider computation time, storage size and financial cost as performance metrics. The latter is measured in Ethereum using the concept of gas. Each on-chain transaction requires spending a certain amount of gas to complete. The cost… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HVE-based System Workflow tokens. Most of the steps remain the same, with a few exceptions. In Step 0, instead of building an index, the TA initializes a flat file that will contain all the encrypted object locations. In Step 2, the owners encrypt object locations by themselves, using the public HVE key. This reduces considerably disclosure compared to the SSE case. The rest of the workflow remains unchanged. Howeve… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mapping 1D domain using best range cover Algorithm 2 Convert Object Locations Input: Grid length L; Location database LDB where LDB[i] = (xi ,yi), ∀i : 0 ≤ xi ,yi < L; Output: Document database DDB for all object id i ∈ LDB do x_words ← Get 1D Covering Nodes of xi y_words ← Get 1D Covering Nodes of yi for all w ∈ x_words do DDB[i] = DDB[i] ∪ concatenate( ′ x ′ ,w) end for for all w ∈ y_words do DDB[i] = DDB[i] ∪ con… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data and query encoding with HVE overhead (e.g., 256 values for the log L = 16 setting). In addition to the storage overhead, there is also increased processing time when performing queries, since all pairs are potential candidates for matching. To prevent performance …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: HXT index generation performance of USD$0.02). In addition, the system can enforce a policy that man￾dates a deposit for each commitment. The deposit can be refunded back to the owner after a transaction is completed, or after a pre￾defined time threshold. For example,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analysis of query restriction effect Fig. 6a shows the average query time for arbitrarily placed queries. The performance overhead is considerably higher for the queries with larger span and is less influenced by granularity. In the worst case, a query takes 12sec, and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HVE encryption time and ciphertext size per object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: HVE matching time per ciphertext for individual data; in this setting, encryption time is usually be￾low 5sec. Even for higher security requirements, encryption never exceeds 40sec. Ciphertext size is under 30KB. Key size 768 1024 1536 2048 Generation time (s) 0.019 0.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scott Scheper Arie Trouw, Markus Levin. [n.d.]. The XY Oracle Network: The Proof-of-Origin Based Cryptographic Location Network. https://docs.xyo.network/XYO-White-Paper.pdf

    work page

  2. [2]

    Dan Boneh, Eu-Jin Goh, and Kobbi Nissim. 2005. Evaluating 2-DNF Formulas on Ciphertexts. In TCC’05. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 325–341

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Dan Boneh, Amit Sahai, and Brent Waters. 2006. Fully Collusion Resistant Traitor Tracing with Short Ciphertexts and Private Keys. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on The Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques . 573–592

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Dan Boneh and Brent Waters. 2007. Conjunctive, Subset, and Range Queries on Encrypted Data. In TCC’07. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 535–554

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Giacomo Brambilla, Michele Amoretti, and Francesco Zanichelli. 2016. Using Block Chain for Peer-to-Peer Proof-of-Location. CoRR abs/1607.00174 (2016). arXiv:1607.00174

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    David Cash, Stanislaw Jarecki, Charanjit Jutla, Hugo Krawczyk, Marcel-Cătălin Roşu, and Michael Steiner. 2013. Highly-scalable searchable symmetric encryp- tion with support for boolean queries. In CRYPTO’13. Springer, 353–373

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Dario Catalano and Dario Fiore. 2013. Vector commitments and their applications. In Public-Key Cryptography–PKC 2013. Springer, 55–72

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Reza Curtmola, Juan Garay, Seny Kamara, and Rafail Ostrovsky. 2011. Searchable symmetric encryption: improved definitions and efficient constructions. Journal of Computer Security 19, 5 (2011), 895–934

    work page 2011

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Mario Dobrovnik, David Herold, Elmar Fürst, and Sebastian Kummer. 2018. Blockchain for and in Logistics: What to Adopt and Where to Start. Logistics 2, 3 (2018), 18

    2018

  2. [10]

    Ethersphere. [n.d.]. InterPlanet File System. https://ipfs.io/

  3. [11]

    Ethersphere. [n.d.]. Swarm. https://swarm- guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/introduction.html

  4. [12]

    M. A. Ferrag, M. Derdour, M. Mukherjee, A. Derhab, L. Maglaras, and H. Janicke

  5. [13]

    Foamspace Corp. [n.d.]. FOAM White paper. Available online at https://foam.space/publicAssets/FOAM_Whitepaper.pdf

  6. [14]

    Gabriel Ghinita and Razvan Rughinis. 2014. An Efficient Privacy-preserving System for Monitoring Mobile Users: Making Searchable Encryption Practical. In CODASPY ’14. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 321–332

    2014

  7. [15]

    Eu-Jin Goh. 2003. Secure indexes. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (2003), 216

    2003

  8. [16]

    Hissu Hyvärinen, Marten Risius, and Gustav Friis. 2017. A Blockchain-Based Ap- proach Towards Overcoming Financial Fraud in Public Sector Services. Business & Information Systems Engineering 59, 6 (2017), 441–456

    2017

  9. [17]

    Yaxian Ji, Junwei Zhang, Jianfeng Ma, Chao Yang, and Xin Yao. 2018. BMPLS: Blockchain-Based Multi-level Privacy-Preserving Location Sharing Scheme for Telecare Medical Information Systems. Journal of Medical Systems 42, 8 (30 Jun 2018), 147

    2018

  10. [18]

    Aggelos Kiayias, Stavros Papadopoulos, Nikos Triandopoulos, and Thomas Zacharias. 2013. Delegatable Pseudorandom Functions and Applications. In CCS’13. ACM, 669–684

    2013

  11. [19]

    Fabian Knirsch, Andreas Unterweger, and Dominik Engel. 2018. Privacy- preserving blockchain-based electric vehicle charging with dynamic tariff deci- sions. Computer Science - Research and Development 33, 1 (01 Feb 2018), 71–79

    2018

  12. [20]

    Ahmed Kosba, Andrew Miller, Elaine Shi, Zikai Wen, and Charalampos Papaman- thou. 2016. Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. In 2016 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP) . IEEE, 839– 858

    2016

  13. [21]

    Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar and Pradeep Kumar Mallick. 2018. Blockchain tech- nology for security issues and challenges in IoT. Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018), 1815–1823

    2018

  14. [22]

    Tsung-Ting Kuo and Lucila Ohno-Machado. 2018. ModelChain: Decentral- ized Privacy-Preserving Healthcare Predictive Modeling Framework on Private Blockchain Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01746 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Liu, Debdeep Mukhopad- hyay, Ron Steinfeld, Shi-Feng Sun, Dongxi Liu, and Cong Zuo

    Shangqi Lai, Sikhar Patranabis, Amin Sakzad, Joseph K. Liu, Debdeep Mukhopad- hyay, Ron Steinfeld, Shi-Feng Sun, Dongxi Liu, and Cong Zuo. 2018. Result Pattern Hiding Searchable Encryption for Conjunctive Queries. In CCS ’18. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 745–762

    2018

  16. [24]

    L. Li, J. Liu, L. Cheng, S. Qiu, W. Wang, X. Zhang, and Z. Zhang. 2018. CreditCoin: A Privacy-Preserving Blockchain-Based Incentive Announcement Network for Communications of Smart Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems 19, 7 (July 2018), 2204–2220

    2018

  17. [25]

    Srdjan Capkun Lionel Wolberger, Allon Mason. [n.d.]. Platin, Proof of Location Blockchain. https://platin.io/assets/whitepaper/Platin_Whitepaper_2.2.2.pdf

  18. [26]

    Fysical Technologies Pte. Ltd. [n.d.]. Fysical: A decentralized location data market. https://view.attach.io/SJm3DCJPG

  19. [27]

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

    2008

  20. [28]

    Benedikt Notheisen, Jacob Benjamin Cholewa, and Arun Prasad Shanmugam

  21. [29]

    Torben Pryds Pedersen. 1992. Non-Interactive and Information-Theoretic Se- cure Verifiable Secret Sharing. In Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO ’91 , Joan Feigenbaum (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 129–140

    1992

  22. [30]

    SNAP. [n.d.]. SNAP Gowalla dataset. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/loc-Gowalla. html [January 11, 2019]

    2019

  23. [31]

    Dawn Xiaoding Song, David Wagner, and Adrian Perrig. 2000. Practical tech- niques for searches on encrypted data. In 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 44–55

    2000

  24. [32]

    Emil Stefanov, Charalampos Papamanthou, and Elaine Shi. 2014. Practical Dy- namic Searchable Encryption with Small Leakage.. In NDSS, Vol. 71. 72–75

    2014

  25. [33]

    Frans Kaashoek, and Hari Balakrish- nan

    Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, and Hari Balakrish- nan. 2001. Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applica- tions. In SIGCOMM ’01. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 149–160

    2001

  26. [34]

    Nick Szabo. 1996. Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets. EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought,(16) (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

    Ce Zhang, Cheng Xu, Jianliang Xu, Yuzhe Tang, and Byron Choi. 2018. GEM2- Tree: A Gas-Efficient Structure for Authenticated Range Queries in Blockchain. In 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE

    2018

  28. [36]

    Guy Zyskind, Oz Nathan, et al. 2015. Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to protect personal data. In 2015 Security and Privacy Workshops . IEEE, 180–184

    2015

  29. [2017]

    Business & Information Systems Engineering 59, 6 (2017), 425–440

    Trading Real-World Assets on Blockchain. Business & Information Systems Engineering 59, 6 (2017), 425–440

    2017

  30. [2018]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2018), 1–1

    Blockchain Technologies for the Internet of Things: Research Issues and Challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2018), 1–1

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.