Bringing secure Bitcoin transactions to your smartphone

Frey, Davide; Makkes, Marc X.; Roman, Pierre-Louis; Taı̈ani, François; Voulgaris, Spyros

doi:10.1145/3008167.3008170

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are also hybrid solutions, which combine certain aspects of the previously explained patterns. Hybrid solutions, for example, help to set up a two-way pegged sidechain although one of the DLT designs does not support an appropriate verification mechanism (e.g., Simple Payment Verification (SPV) [12]). In such situations, a notary scheme replaces the ability of the particular relay to recognize and validate included transactions and let trusted notaries provide this information [1].…”

Section: Hybrid Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than moving assets, cross-chain oracles, in contrast, provide information from one distributed ledger to another [5]. Thus, cross-chain oracles can be employed to verify that certain events (e.g., a transaction) occurred on another distributed ledger (e.g., SPV [12]) enabling, for example, the migration of data from one distributed ledger to another or the interaction of distributed ledger in supply chain management (SCM). In SCM, one distributed ledger for payments could request the current state of a shipment on another distributed ledger for tracking to execute conditional payments.…”

Section: Use Cases For Cross-chain Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bridges Between Islands: Cross-Chain Technology for Distributed Ledger Technology

Kannengießer¹,

Pfister²,

Greulich³

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the emergence of blockchain in 2008, we see a kaleidoscopic variety of applications built on distributed ledger technology (DLT), including applications for financial services, healthcare, or the Internet of Things. Each application comes with specific requirements for DLT characteristics (e.g., high throughput, scalability). However, trade-offs between DLT characteristics restrict the development of a DLT design (e.g., Ethereum, IOTA) that fits all use cases' requirements. Separated DLT designs emerged, each specialized to suite dedicated application requirements. To enable the development of more powerful applications on DLT, such DLT islands must be bridged. However, knowledge of cross-chain technology (CCT) is scattered across scientific and practical sources. Therefore, we examine this diverse body of knowledge and provide comprehensive insights into CCT by synthesizing its underlying characteristics, evolving patterns, and use cases. Our findings resolve contradictions in the literature and provide avenues for future research in an emerging scientific field.

show abstract

Section: Hybrid Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Use Cases For Cross-chain Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridges Between Islands: Cross-Chain Technology for Distributed Ledger Technology

Kannengießer¹,

Pfister²,

Greulich³

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ease of Node Adoption. The ease of preparing a new or failed device to be added to the DLT design in the role of a validating node or a consuming terminal device [44,56,57]. Ease of Use.…”

Section: Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ease of Use. The ability to easily access and work with the DLT design [57,58]. Support for Constrained Devices.…”

Section: Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does Not Fit Can Be Made to Fit! Trade-Offs in Distributed Ledger Technology Designs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distributed ledger technology (DLT), including blockchain, enables secure processing of transactions between untrustworthy parties in a decentralized system. However, DLT is available in different designs that exhibit diverse characteristics. Moreover, DLT characteristics have complementary and conflicting interdependencies. Hence, there will never be an ideal DLT design for all DLT use cases; instead, DLT implementations need to be configured to contextual requirements. Successful DLT configuration requires, however, a sound understanding of DLT characteristics and their interdependencies. In this manuscript, we review DLT characteristics and organize them into six groups. Furthermore, we condense interdependencies of DLT characteristics into trade-offs that should be considered for successful deployment of DLT. Finally, we consolidate our findings into DLT archetypes for common design objectives, such as security, usability, or performance. Our work makes extant DLT research more transparent and fosters understanding of interdependencies and trade-offs between DLT characteristics.

show abstract

“…Frey et al introduced a protocol that enables LCs to verify if some transaction exists in a blockchain by using distributed hash tables (DHTs). Their idea is to split transaction information in shards and store them in a DHT managed by FNs as well as LCs.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Securing light clients in blockchain with DLCP

Costa¹,

Neto²,

Pinheiro³

et al. 2018

Int J Network Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In blockchain, full nodes (FNs) are peers that store and verify entire chains of transactions. In contrast, light clients (LCs) are those with limited resources, and for this reason, they request only block headers from FNs for transaction verification-using protocols like Simple Payment Verification (SPV). In an approach to prevent FN tampering on transaction verification (byzantine fault), LCs request block headers from multiple FNs and compare received responses. One problem with this approach is that an LC must connect to each FN and perform the same cryptographic operations with each one repeatedly, which leads to client-side complexity and slower response. We propose an alternate approach to tackle this issue, in which LCs can encrypt a request for block headers only once, and send that request to a predetermined set of FNs to access, process, and reply back in a single response. Our approach, called Distributed Lightweight Client Protocol (DLCP), enables LCs to verify with little effort if FNs have agreed on a response. From an experimental evaluation, we observed that DLCP provided lower latency and reduced computing and communication overhead in comparison with the existing conventional approach.Int J Network Mgmt. 2019;29:e2055.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nem

show abstract

Bringing secure Bitcoin transactions to your smartphone

Cited by 24 publications

References 3 publications

Bridges Between Islands: Cross-Chain Technology for Distributed Ledger Technology

Bridges Between Islands: Cross-Chain Technology for Distributed Ledger Technology

What Does Not Fit Can Be Made to Fit! Trade-Offs in Distributed Ledger Technology Designs

Securing light clients in blockchain with DLCP

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About