The Criteria for Adapting a Blockchain Consensus Algorithm to IoT Networks †
Department Computer Science, GLISI Teams, FST Errachidia, Moulay Ismail University, Errachidia 52000, Morocco
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the 3rd International Day on Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Errachidia, Morocco, 13 May 2023.
Comput. Sci. Math. Forum 2023, 6(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/cmsf2023006009
Published: 7 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 3rd International Day on Computer Science and Applied Mathematics)
Abstract
:The Internet of Things (IoT) is a network of smart objects connected via the Internet, where each object is identified by a unique, accessible, and programmable address, while Blockchain is a technology for storing and transmitting information based on a decentralized system such that the centralized validation of transactions is replaced by a consensus mechanism. The integration of these two technologies requires consensus protocols to overcome the major challenges encountered in IoT systems, including issues related to security, storage capacity limits, computing power, etc. Therefore, different consensus algorithms have been implemented. For this purpose, this paper presents a research study on the criteria that would render a Blockchain consensus algorithm suitable for IoT networks, namely, computing power, latency, storage capacity, and security.
1. Introduction
Blockchain and Internet of Things (IoT) are two innovative technologies that have the potential to transform many sectors of industry and society as a whole. Blockchain technology has the potential to render systems decentralized; in other words, it can remove the requirement for an intermediary that validates transactions performed. For this reason, the integration of this technology in IoT systems overcomes some of the challenges encountered in these systems [1].
In order to achieve the integration of IoT networks with Blockchain technology, the different connected objects must communicate in a decentralized way, i.e., via communication protocols; these protocols are called consensus algorithms. However, most of these algorithms require higher computing power. This is not suitable for IoT devices; therefore, in this article, we discuss some criteria for choosing a consensus algorithm for IoT [1,2,3], including computing power, latency, data security, and storage.
2. Basic Concepts
2.1. Overview of Blockchain Technology
The foundations of Blockchain technology were proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto in his white paper released in 2008 [3]. This white paper introduced Blockchain technology by describing a decentralized electronic payment system based on the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. Blockchain, as its name suggests, was considered, as a chain of blocks that allows for the storage and transmission of data. All blocks are connected consecutively, and each block (except the first one, which is called the genesis block) is linked to the previous block (called the parent block) via an address, which is the hash value of this parent block. This principle is shown in Figure 1.
Several consensus algorithms have been developed, such as PoW (Power of Work) [4], PoET (Proof of Elapsed Time) [2], PoS (Proof of Stake) [4], PoI (Proof of Importance) [2], PoA (Proof of Authority) [4], Casper [5], PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) [4], dPBFT (delegated Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) [6], Raft [7], Elastico [8], and RSCoin [9].
Blockchain technology provides many benefits with respect to untrusted environments. For IoT systems, the main benefits and goals of integrating this technology are as follows:
- Decentralization: Blockchain can be used to solve bottleneck and point failure problems by eliminating the need for a trusted third party in a network [10].
- Immutability: One of the main strengths of Blockchain is its ability to store data in an immutable and secure manner. Each transaction is time-stamped and verified by the Blockchain network [11].
- Security: All transactions are encrypted, which means that modifying them becomes very difficult once they are recorded on the Blockchain [1].
- Data privacy: The immutable and reliable features of Blockchain make it an ideal choice for storing IoT data securely [12].
2.2. Overview of the IoT
The IoT is composed of two key elements: the Internet and objects. It is a network of interconnected objects that communicate with each other to perform various tasks. The IoT allows for the collection of real-time data, which can then be analyzed and used to make decisions or perform actions in real time. For example, in healthcare, sensors can be used to monitor a patient’s blood pressure, and the corresponding data can be sent to a physician in real time for continuous monitoring [13]. Typical IoT systems are often designed with layered subsystems that enable the collection, processing, and analysis of data generated by connected objects [14]. The three basic layers of an IoT system are perception, communication, and applications [14,15,16].
3. Criteria for Adapting a Consensus Algorithm to IoT Networks (CA-IoT)
Blockchain is a decentralized network whose nodes are also involved in the process of validating transactions and creating new blocks. To maintain the integrity of a blockchain, a consensus algorithm is used to ensure that all network nodes agree on the state of the blockchain and that all transactions are valid.
The aim of integrating Blockchain technology into the IoT is to overcome some of the challenges faced in the IoT, thus improving the efficiency of IoT applications, whose consensus algorithms form the basis for the transaction validation process [17]. The major challenge is to choose the most suitable algorithm for the IoT. The main contribution of this paper is the presentation of a set of criteria that should be taken into consideration when choosing a consensus algorithm. These criteria, which are described below, are computing power, latency, data security, and storage.
3.1. Computing Power
In general, computing power is expressed in hertz, which is a measure of frequency. Concretely, it is the number of clock cycles per second performed by the microprocessor, and each cycle can be a complete or fragmented mathematical operation, depending on its complexity [1,18].
This criterion allows us to measure the reliability of a consensus algorithm in order to apply it to IoT networks; in other words, for an algorithm to be suitable for IoT networks, its computing power must be low. Otherwise, it must consume less energy.
3.2. Latency
Latency is one of the most important criteria for choosing a consensus algorithm. Latency refers to the waiting time required for a transaction to be processed. In the case of a public blockchain, a large number of nodes must reach a consensus for a transaction to be verified. In general, IoT networks require consensus algorithms that have low latency, which is on the order of milliseconds, due to the real-time nature of many IoT applications. Consensus algorithms with higher latency, which is on the order of seconds or minutes, may not be suitable for these applications as they may cause delays or inconsistencies in data processing and decision making. Therefore, a consensus algorithm with low latency is essential for the reliable and efficient operation of IoT networks [19,20].
3.3. Data Security
In Blockchain technology, each block is linked to the previous block by a fingerprint called Hash. Essentially, the security of a blockchain depends on the consensus algorithm used. Indeed, understanding potential threats to consensus security is paramount to securing the blockchain.
Smart contracts based on Blockchain technology are expected to play a crucial role in managing, controlling, and, most significantly, enhancing the security of IoT devices. In order to enhance IoT security, we have outlined certain inherent features of a blockchain that are highly valuable:
- Address space: Blockchain possesses an address space that measures 160 bits, which differs from the IPv6 address space that measures 128 bits. A blockchain address is essentially a 20-byte or 160-bit hash of a public key generated through an ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm). Given its 160-bit address space, a blockchain has the ability to create and distribute addresses offline, allowing for the accommodation of approximately 1.46 ∗ 1048 IoT devices [21].
- Secure communications [22]: This is a critical aspect of both blockchain and IoT systems. In the context of blockchains, secure communication refers to the transmission of information between different nodes in a decentralized network in a way that maintains the integrity and confidentiality of the corresponding data. This is achieved through various cryptographic techniques such as digital signatures, hash functions, and encryption. In the case of the IoT, secure communication is essential because these devices are often connected to the internet and can transmit sensitive data such as personal information or confidential business data. IoT devices also have limited computational and storage capacity, which makes it difficult to implement complex security measures. Therefore, secure communication is crucial to ensure that data are transmitted securely between devices and to prevent unauthorized access to a network [22].
- Identification, authorization, and privacy: Blockchain smart contracts have the ability to provide decentralized authentication rules and logic allowing for the provision of singular and multi-party authentication to an IoT device [1].
3.4. Storage
Blockchain technology is based on a decentralized infrastructure, which is an alternative to centralized cloud storage and can solve many problems that are encountered in a centralized system [22]. Blockchain technology can be used in the Internet of Things (IoT) to enable the secure and efficient storage of data. In the IoT, a large number of data are generated by various devices such as sensors, cameras, and other connected devices. These data need to be stored securely and efficiently to ensure their integrity and users’ privacy.
In the context of the IoT, blockchain technology can be used to store data generated by IoT devices. These data can include sensor readings, device logs, and other types of data. By storing these data on a blockchain, they can be accessed by authorized parties in a secure and efficient manner. The data are stored in a distributed manner, which means that they are not owned by any single entity, making them more secure and less susceptible to data breaches [22].
3.5. Discussion
Consensus algorithms that are suitable for large-scale (resource limited) IoT networks must satisfy the following constraints: security, latency, data storage, and computing power.
The required values of these criteria in order to ensure the appropriate selection of a consensus algorithm are presented in Table 1.
Table 2 presents two examples of consensus algorithms and their adaptation to IoT systems according to the criteria mentioned above.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we focused on the criteria for adapting consensus algorithms in IoT networks.
Most attempts to adapt a consensus algorithm to the IoT have faced a range of restrictions, such as latency, computing power, network overhead, scalability, and reliability. Not one of them, of course, have been able to resolve all of the restrictions to an acceptable degree [2].
Blockchain technology will replace central entities by using consensus algorithms between participants to secure a system in a decentralized manner. Most of the consensus algorithms discussed in the first section require high computing power and energy, which renders them inadequate for IoT applications [23].
Consensus algorithms that are suitable for large-scale (resource-limited) IoT networks must satisfy the following constraints: security; latency, which must be low (on the order of milliseconds); data storage; and computing power.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.A., M.O. and L.E.B.; methodology, M.A. and M.O.; software, M.A. and L.E.B.; validation, M.O. and L.E.B.; formal analysis, M.A., M.O. and L.E.B.; investigation, M.A. and M.O.; resources, M.A. and M.O.; data curation, M.A. and L.E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A. and M.O.; writing—review and editing, M.O. and L.E.B.; visualization, M.A., M.O. and L.E.B.; supervision, M.O. and L.E.B.; project administration, M.O. and L.E.B.; funding acquisition, M.A., M.O. and L.E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
All data have been presented in the main text.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Uddine, M.A.; Stranierie, A.; Gondal, I.; Balasubramanian, V. A Survey on the Adoption of Blockchain in IoT: Challenges and Solutions. Blockchain Res. Appl. 2021, 2, 100006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salimitari, M.; Chatterjee, M. A survey on consensus protocols in blockchain for IoT networks. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1809.05613. [Google Scholar]
- Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2008. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Debus, J. Consensus methods in blockchain systems. Technol. Rep. 2017, 58, 13. [Google Scholar]
- Sompolinsky, Y.; Zohar, A. Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin. In Proceedings of the Financial Cryptography and Data Security: 19th International Conference, FC 2015, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 26–30 January 2015; Revised Selected Papers 19. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 507–527. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.N.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2018, 14, 352–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dib, O.; Brousmiche, K.L.; Durand, A.; Thea, E.; Hamida, E.B. Consortium blockchains: Overview, applications and challenges. Int. J. Adv. Telecommun. 2018, 11, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
- Luu, L.; Narayanan, V.; Zheng, C.; Baweja, K.; Gilbert, S.; Saxena, P. A secure sharding protocol for open blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016; pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
- Zamani, M.; Movahedi, M.; Raykova, M. Rapidchain: Scaling blockchain via full sharding. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Toronto, ON, Canada, 15–19 October 2018; pp. 931–948. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Y.; Li, Y.; Tian, J.; Liu, J. Blockchain-Based Solutions to Security and Privacy Issues in the Internet of Things. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2018, 25, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanwar, S.; Parekh, K.; Evans, R. Blockchain-based electronic healthcare record system for healthcare 4.0 applications. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2019, 50, 102407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwivedi, A.D.; Malina, L.; Dzurenda, P.; Srivastava, G. Optimized Blockchain model for Internet of Things based healthcare applications. In Proceedings of the 2019 42nd International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing, Budapest, Hungary, 1–3 July 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 135–139. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, W.; Cao, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, L. Edge Computing: Vision and Challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, H.-N.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, Y. Blockchain for Internet of Things: A Survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 8076–8094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Minoli, D.; Sohraby, K.; Kouns, J. IoT security (IoTSec) considerations, requirements, and architectures. In Proceedings of the 2017 14th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 8–11 January 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1006–1007. [Google Scholar]
- Mekki, K.; Bajic, E.; Chaxel, F.; Meyer, F. A comparative study of LPWAN technologies for large-scale IoT deployment. ICT Express 2018, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- What Are the Different Consensus Algorithms? Available online: https://en.archipels.io/faq/what-are-different-consensus-algorithms (accessed on 2 February 2023).
- AbuNaser, M.; Alkhatib, A.A. Advanced survey of blockchain for the internet of things smart home. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Jordan International Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (JEEIT), Amman, Jordan, 9–11 April 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 58–62. [Google Scholar]
- Uddin, A.; Stranieri, A.; Gondal, I.; Balasubramanian, V. Blockchain leveraged decentralized IoT eHealth framework. Internet Things 2020, 9, 100159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, N.; Faheem, Y.; Din, I.U.; Talha, M.; Guizani, M.; Khalil, M. A blockchain-based fog computing framework for activity recognition as an application to e-Healthcare services. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 100, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonopoulos, A.M. Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Crypto-Currencies, 1st ed.; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, M.A.; Salah, K. IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 82, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puthal, D.; Mohanty, S.P.; Yanambaka, V.P.; Kougianos, E. PoAh A Novel Consensus Algorithm for Fast Scalable Private Blockchain for Large-scale IoT Frameworks. arXiv 2001, arXiv:2001.07297. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Block chaining in Blockchain [2].
Figure 1.
Block chaining in Blockchain [2].
Table 1.
Values concerning the criteria for choosing a consensus algorithm.
| Security | Latency | Data Storage | Computing Power |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low (in order of milliseconds) | High | Low |
Table 2.
Properties of Proof of Work (POW) and Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET) [2].
Table 2.
Properties of Proof of Work (POW) and Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET) [2].
| Consensus Algorithm | Latency | Data Storage | Computing Power |
|---|---|---|---|
| POW | High (on the order of minutes) | High | High |
| PoET | Low (on the order of milliseconds) | High | Low |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Aghroud, M.; Oualla, M.; El Bermi, L. The Criteria for Adapting a Blockchain Consensus Algorithm to IoT Networks. Comput. Sci. Math. Forum 2023, 6, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/cmsf2023006009
AMA Style
Aghroud M, Oualla M, El Bermi L. The Criteria for Adapting a Blockchain Consensus Algorithm to IoT Networks. Computer Sciences & Mathematics Forum. 2023; 6(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/cmsf2023006009
Chicago/Turabian StyleAghroud, Mohamed, Mohamed Oualla, and Lahcen El Bermi. 2023. "The Criteria for Adapting a Blockchain Consensus Algorithm to IoT Networks" Computer Sciences & Mathematics Forum 6, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/cmsf2023006009
