Novel Blockchain and Zero-Knowledge Proof Technology-Driven Car Insurance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a decentralized zero-knowledge proof-based car insurance claim framework to address the privacy leakage problem in car insurance schemes under the traditional blockchain frameworks. The following are my feedback and comments on the paper manuscript:

1. The current title does not match the paper’s contribution claims and content. It should be effectively reformulated.

2. The introduction does not provide sufficient background and includes all relevant references. This should be effectively improved.

3. Considering the statements given in Lines 256-263: How is the block.number included upfront in the transaction hashed input data? Whereas the block number is usually determined later after the transaction has been processed (hashed and signed, which means it cannot be alternated), included in a block, and committed to the blockchain upon a consensus of miners.  The authors should clarify this in the manuscript. 

4. The authors mentioned that they have designed and implemented both private and public smart contracts. How did you deploy and test your private smart contracts using Ethereum? Which is known as a public blockchain platform. The authors should clarify this aspect in the manuscript. 

5. Considering the statement in lines 479-482, using ZoKrates to perform zero-knowledge proof computation and generate proofs off-chain, and verifying the correctness of proofs on-chain might reduce the on-chain computation overhead, but not reduce the amount of data storage if the generated proofs are stored on the blockchain. 

6. A discussion of the limitations and remaining challenges with your proposed solution should be provided. In addition to the conclusion, supplement suggestions or orientation for further research.

Moderate editing of English language and final proofreading required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposes a blockchain-based scheme to preserve privacy in the car insurance field.

The contribution is the inclusion of the Zokrates platform to enhance privacy via the use of the zero-knowledge-proof concept.

The paper topic is interesting and will improve the privacy and anonymity of car owners when issuing car insurance or claiming management.

The different parts of the manuscript are complete and contain enough information to ensure the comprehensiveness of the proposed model.

However, the manuscript lacks an important section about including samples of private and smart contract algorithms. Also, consensus management is not mentioned. The authors should also indicate the dataset used to test the different zero-proof knowledge concepts and the reliability of their approach.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes a privacy-preserving car insurance claim scheme based on the blockchain technology and zero-knowledge proofs. The authors use a hybrid smart contract proxy model with a  private smart contract for the creation and revocation of car insurance and a public smart contract for the authorisation and validation. ZoKrates is applied to enable zero-knowledge authorisation and verification. This allows avoidance of the exposure of privacy attributes’ ownership in a public ledger and ensures there is no link between vehicle owners and their insurance details. The paper also includes a security analysis and performance evaluation of the proposed approach.

The presentation in the paper is done well, with the research questions and contributions clearly stated. The paper is generally well structured and contains appropriate references. The overall level of English is good. 

Further improvement of the paper could be done by extending the discussion in subsection 5.3.4 to not only comparison of characteristics, but also, if possible, performance of similar solutions. This would allow an even better look at the contribution of this paper.

Therefore, I would recommend to accept this paper after minor revisions and language editing.

The overall level of English is good, only minor corrections and improvements are required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf