PyIncentiveBC: A Python Module for Simulation of Incentivization Mechanism Implemented in Blockchain-Based Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pros:

1. The paper introduces PyIncentiveBC, a novel open-source tool designed to simulate incentivization mechanisms in Blockchain-based systems, providing a valuable resource for the research community.
2. The tool facilitates the benchmarking of various reward and penalty approaches, making it easier for researchers to compare different mechanisms.
3. The paper provides a thorough explanation of the tool's architecture, functionalities, and the underlying equations, which aids in understanding and replication.
4. PyIncentiveBC has potential applications in both research and education, helping researchers to test new ideas and students to learn about Blockchain incentivization mechanisms.
5. By making the tool open source, the authors encourage collaboration and further development by the wider community.

Cons:

1. The paper primarily focuses on synthetic exemplary data, and additional real-world case studies would enhance the validity and applicability of the tool.
2. The implementation and setup of the tool might be complex for users who are not well-versed in Python or Blockchain technology.
3. While the tool allows for benchmarking, the paper could provide more extensive comparisons with a broader range of existing incentivization mechanisms.
4. The lack of a graphical user interface (GUI) might limit accessibility for non-technical users.
5. The current implementation may be more suited to certain types of Blockchain consensus algorithms and extending it to cover a wider range might increase its utility.

Recommendations:

1. The authors must include more real-world examples and case studies to demonstrate the tool’s effectiveness and applicability in diverse scenarios.
2. The authors must extend the tool to support a wider range of blockchain consensus algorithms and incentivization mechanisms.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors developed PyIncentiveBC, a free, open-source, and modular simulator designed to evaluate the reliability of any approach, incorporating a dynamic and proportionate incentivization mechanism. After reviewing this paper, I suggest that the authors need to overcome some questions for improving the quality:

1. The motivation in the Section “INTRODUCTION”  for the paper is unclear.

 

2. The contribution in the Section “INTRODUCTION”   in the introduction section should be described in more detail.

 

3 . The literature review is poor and not done systematically. The author should dedicate a sub-section for reviewing the solution approaches.

4. Extend the conclusion in terms of future directions. Also, some bold research gaps must be provided.

 

 

 

   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The previous concerns are addressed, and I think it can be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.