Quantifying the cost of distrust: comparing blockchain and cloud services for business process execution
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cost of execution of the business process on Ethereum blockchain could be two orders of magnitude greater than on Amazon SWF.
“Rimba et al. [120] reported that the cost of execution of the business process on Ethereum blockchain could be two orders of magnitude greater than on Amazon SWF.”
From A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions (2021) · cites this paper as [120]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 68
- Authors
- Rimba, P., Tran, A. B., Weber, I., Staples, M., Ponomarev, A., & Xu, X.
- Affiliations
- Data61 (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Rimba, Paul
- Venue
- Information Systems Frontiers
- Published
- 2018-08-14
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 489-507
- ISSN
- 1387-3326 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-9419
- OpenAlex
- W2886294947
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 10.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2019-03-18)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Systems Frontiers (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Keywords
- blockchain, cloud services, business process execution, execution cost, storage costs, cost model, throughput scalability, Ethereum, design trade-offs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review