The DOI matches its Crossref record; 290 of the 292 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 190 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions
Open accessAbstract
Conventional Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystems involve data streaming from sensors, through Fog devices to a centralized Cloud server. Issues that arise include privacy concerns due to third party management of Cloud servers, single points of failure, a bottleneck in data flows and difficulties in regularly updating firmware for millions of smart devices from a point of security and maintenance perspective. Blockchain technologies avoid trusted third parties and safeguard against a single point of failure and other issues. This has inspired researchers to investigate blockchain’s adoption into IoT ecosystem. In this paper, recent state-of-the-arts advances in blockchain for IoT, blockchain for Cloud IoT and blockchain for Fog IoT in the context of eHealth, smart cities, intelligent transport and other applications are analyzed. Obstacles, research gaps and potential solutions are also presented.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This survey reviews blockchain adoption in IoT, Cloud of Things, Fog of Things, and SDN across eHealth, smart cities/home, intelligent transport, and other applications, cataloguing challenges and potential solutions. It finds blockchain can address privacy, single-point-of-failure, bottleneck, and trust issues, but resource, throughput, storage, privacy-transparency, and regulatory obstacles remain.
Key findings
- The survey identifies six main adoption challenges: power/performance/security trade-off, data concurrency and throughput, IoT connectivity, big-data storage, transparency vs privacy, and regulation. It cites that a blockchain node would need approximately 730 GB/year if 1000 participants exchange one 2 MB image per day, and notes anticipation of more than 50 billion connected devices by 2020.
- It reviews consensus mechanisms and blockchain types, noting Bitcoin’s 12.5 bitcoins per block at one block per 10 min, PoW energy consumption compared with Ireland, Austria, and Colombia, and that Ethereum business process execution can cost two orders of magnitude more than Amazon SWF.
- Proposed solutions include smart agents/gateways, sharding, sidechains, off-chain storage, homomorphic encryption, proxy re-encryption, federated learning, and regulation combining law, social norms, and economic means.
- Application review covers eHealth, smart cities/home, vehicular networks, and miscellaneous IoT; blockchain roles include access control, data sharing, authentication, trust, payment, and supply chain. Many reviewed works are conceptual or lack performance/security evaluation; the majority of included studies were published in 2019, with the largest share from IEEE Xplore.
Methods
- Design: narrative survey/review of recent state-of-the-art advances in blockchain for IoT, Cloud IoT, Fog IoT, and SDN, covering eHealth, smart cities, intelligent transport, and other applications.
- Data: literature searched with keywords including blockchain and IoT, healthcare, Fog, Cloud, and Agent; downloaded from IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, ACM, Springer, MDPI, and SAGE. Statistics show the largest percentage from IEEE Xplore, second-highest from Elsevier journals, and the majority published in 2019.
- Analysis: reviewed studies against attributes including blockchain type, consensus mechanism, access control, scalability, on-chain/off-chain storage, tools/simulators, contributions/outcomes, and limitations/remarks; challenges and solutions are synthesized in tables and figures.
Limitations
- The paper does not state its own limitations explicitly. It states that current blockchain platforms have scalability limitations, high computational cost, security/privacy issues, and regulatory challenges, and it repeatedly notes that many reviewed blockchain-IoT proposals are conceptual, not implemented, or lack performance/security evaluation.
- Evident from the text: the survey is narrative rather than a systematic review with a formal search/selection protocol; it relies on selected databases and keyword searches, and its statistics are descriptive (publisher/year/application counts) without meta-analysis.
- Evident from the text: coverage is broad but uneven; some sections and tables are incomplete or rely on author-reported weaknesses, and the survey does not independently validate the reviewed systems.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
173 Not checked yet · 134 Own interpretation · 101 No basis given · 2 Own result · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
In the paper
“(1) Since a single server is meant to deal with all kinds of customers' queries, customers would not be able to access services during the period of failure [151].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [151] Kessler, 2018
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“(3) The database can be changed from the server-side without the data owner having control or knowledge of the changes in the database [7,153].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Michelin, 2018, Speedychain: a framework for decoupling data from blockchain for smart cities
- Not checked yetcites [153] Fan, 2018, Investigating blockchain as a data management tool for IoT devices in smart city initiatives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“(2) There is a risk of violating the data owner's privacy because unencrypted data might be exposed to unauthorized individuals by the entity that administers the centralized storage medium [152].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [152] Constine, 2018
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, performance assessments for the proposed scheme has not been carried out.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [170] Kang, 2018, Recent patient health monitoring platforms incorporating internet of things-enabled smart devices, Int. Neurourol. J. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although the authors described the healthcare workflow for the proposed system, extensive performance analysis has not been carried out to demonstrate the feasibility of the system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [166] Celesti, 2020, Blockchain-based healthcare workflow for tele-medical laboratory in federated hospital IoT clouds, Sensors source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The drawback of the proposed scheme is that data confidentiality has not been addressed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [87] Celiz, 2018, Cloud model for purchase management in health sector of Peru based on IoT and blockchain
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most research presented in Tables 8 and 9 has addressed the storage cost issue on the blockchain network by following the off-chain database approach.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, security issues between sensors, mobile App have not been addressed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.3. Blockchain for mHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] Ichikawa, 2017, Tamper-resistant mobile health using blockchain technology, JMIR mHealth and uHealth source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research [93,94,193] has investigated blockchain as a promising solution to the service outsourcing challenges such as security, privacy, payment and contract.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93] Cao, 2019, Cloud-assisted secure ehealth systems for tamper-proofing EHR via blockchain, Inf. Sci. source
- Not checked yetcites [94] Park, 2018, Corus: blockchain-based trustworthy evaluation system for efficacy of healthcare remedies
- Not checked yetcites [193] Zhu, 2019, zkCrowd: a hybrid blockchain-based crowdsourcing platform, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the security and privacy issues while retrieving data from wearable sensors were ignored.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.8. Blockchain smart contract in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [100] Kazmi, 2019, Trusted remote patient monitoring using blockchain-based smart contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the authors did not evaluate the performance of the proposed technique using any simulator or by building a prototype.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [179] Ramani, 2018, Secure and efficient data accessibility in blockchain based healthcare systems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, a smart contract for managing service has not been investigated.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93] Cao, 2019, Cloud-assisted secure ehealth systems for tamper-proofing EHR via blockchain, Inf. Sci. source
- Not checked yetcites [94] Park, 2018, Corus: blockchain-based trustworthy evaluation system for efficacy of healthcare remedies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The weakness of the article is that actual simulations have not been rendered on the suggested security scheme.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.6. Blockchain enabled data sharing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [91] Dwivedi, 2019, A decentralized privacy-preserving healthcare blockchain for IoT, Sensors source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“How blockchain based searchable encryption improved over the conventional was not demonstrated.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [96] Chen, 2019, Blockchain based searchable encryption for electronic health record sharing, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the shortcoming of the proposed scheme is that blockchain for the system has not been implemented.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [219] Dorri, 2017, Blockchain for IoT security and privacy: the case study of a smart home
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The shortcoming of the paper is that prototype is yet to be implemented to study the feasibility of the proposed consensus mechanism.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.9. Lightweight blockchain in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [201] Yang, 2019, Proof-of-familiarity: a privacy-preserved blockchain scheme for collaborative medical decision-making, Appl. Sci. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The customized blockchain can reduce computational and communication delay but can not guarantee the tamper-proof of the ledger.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.9. Lightweight blockchain in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [198] Ismail, 2019, Lightweight blockchain for healthcare, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“used an extra global blockchain that can increase the latency of processing blocks.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.11. Blockchain enabled eHealth architecture
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [84] Akkaoui, 2020, A hybrid edge blockchain-based framework for health data exchange, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both approaches, IoT systems are not directly connected to the peer nodes of the blockchain network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The blockchain's peer to peer (P2P) architecture is regarded as a possible solution to problems with a single point of failure and bottleneck [11,12].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The study in Ref. [22] calculated that a blockchain node would need approximately 730 GB of data storage per year if 1000 participants exchange a single 2 MB image per day in a blockchain application.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Kyle, 2018
plaindirectn = 1,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, user's confidentiality may be adversely affected when storing and accessing IoT data from certain IoT systems such as eHealth on the blockchain [23].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Yu, 2019, Blockchain technology for the 5G—enabled internet of things systems: principle, applications and challenges
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, blockchain's complexity, including high computing costs and delays, is a challenge in the amalgamation of blockchain with IoT that have restricted power and storage capacities [15].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Özyılmaz, 2017, Work-in-progress: integrating low-power IoT devices to a blockchain-based infrastructure
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The high computational power required to run blockchain algorithms has slowed down the advancement of these technology-based applications on resource constrained devices.
In the paper
“Consequently, aggregate signatures can address the issue of limited storage and bandwidth.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.1.2. Different types and schemes of digital signature
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Boneh, 2011, Aggregate signatures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the management of IoT data on the blockchain puts a burden on participants' storage space.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
plaindirectn = 1,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While several blockchain technological features including decentralization, immutability, anonymity, and automation are promising security solutions for diverse IoT applications, these features combined pose various new regulatory challenges [24].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Ellul, 2020, Regulating blockchain, dlt and smart contracts: a technology regulator's perspective, ERA Forum source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Due to the absence of governance, records cannot be filtered for maintaining privacy before publishing them on the blockchain.
- Rests on an assumption: Actions resulting from executing code such as smart contracts on a DTL can breach law.
- Rests on an assumption: Due to the anonymity of the DTL, it is not so straightforward to distinguish the parties carrying out transactions for illegal services.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“communication overhead exponentially increases for each additional node that joins the network”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“practical BFT is prone to Sybil attacks (one participant maintains many identifiers that can influence this mechanism) [66].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [66] Gramoli, 2017, From blockchain consensus back to byzantine consensus, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practical BFT effectively works well in distributed networks with a limited number of nodes”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This approach can resist attacks that are occurred by malicious nodes' colluding [71].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] Ghosh, 2014, A torpath to torcoin: proof-of-bandwidth altcoins for compensating relays
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, malicious nodes can falsely report their bandwidths.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Proof of Authentication is deemed as appropriate consensus protocol in IoT as it avoids the inverse hash computation for energy-efficient distributed secure communications and computing in IoT [74].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [74] Puthal, 2019, Proof-of-authentication for scalable blockchain in resource-constrained distributed systems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach is much more energy-efficient than other consensus protocols such as PoW.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The availability or security of the network cannot be compromised even if some of the nodes go offline.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.3. Objectives of blockchain technology in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“blockchain, with its decentralized nature, is a promising technique for effectively solving bottleneck and one-point failure problems by eliminating the need for a trusted third party in the IoT network [8].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.3. Objectives of blockchain technology in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Yu, 2018, Blockchain-based solutions to security and privacy issues in the internet of things, IEEE Wireless Communications source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transaction histories in blockchain are more transparent since these histories are available to all network users.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Greater Transparency:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The disruption of a blockchain node does not affect the operation of the blockchain and IoT network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.3. Objectives of blockchain technology in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Enhanced Security: blockchain is more reliable and secure than other record-keeping systems from several aspects [8].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.3. Objectives of blockchain technology in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Yu, 2018, Blockchain-based solutions to security and privacy issues in the internet of things, IEEE Wireless Communications source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Further, with blockchain-enabled smart contracts [141], blockchain and IoT can provide consumers with trusted access control, which automatically authorize all operations of IoT devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [141] Hu, 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently, due to constraints in block size, many blockchains have lengthy processing periods for transactions to be written into the chain of previously confirmed blocks.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cryptographic link between subsequent blocks can withstand any attempts of transactions' alteration or modification.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the magnitude of IoT data would grow rapidly, making the processing of high volumes of data complicated in the blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such transparency also leads to protecting the credibility of the blockchain-based systems by reducing the possibility of unauthorized data alternations.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Greater Transparency:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current blockchain platforms have some bottlenecks that result in poor scalability with restricted throughput, efficiency and high computational cost.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thanks to blockchain's immutable and trustworthy features, storage systems on the blockchain are extremely efficient to protect IoT data from alteration [19].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Dwivedi, 2019, Optimized blockchain model for Internet of Things based healthcare applications
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if any changes occur in a transaction, it will be easily identified.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Due to these limitations, many applications developers don't see blockchain technology as an alternative solution to the existing systems for large IoT systems [145].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [145] Kim, 2018, A survey of scalability solutions on blockchain
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This way, the block data cannot be updated, altered or removed after it is validated and recorded in the blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These steps combinedly consume considerable computing power.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“If all transactions are saved on the chain, the ledger over time will become extremely large [144].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144] Lin, 2018, The challenges of existence, status, and value for improving blockchain, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to resource constraints of IoT systems, it is difficult for them to meet resource requirements of PoW for qualifying the most decentralized nature.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Blockchain technology with high immutable, stable, and trustworthy features can tackle the challenges raised while sharing health information in Cloud ecosystems [150].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [150] Jin, 2019, A review of secure and privacy-preserving medical data sharing, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Integration of blockchain into Cloud computing significantly increases security for storage services in Cloud eHealth.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recently, researchers [159,160] have sought blockchain technology to integrate into decentralized SDN IoT framework to ensure uniform state among the instances of the SDN controller.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Southbound Interface:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [159] Sharma, 2017, Distblocknet: a distributed blockchains-based secure SDN architecture for IoT networks, IEEE Commun. Mag. source
- Not checked yetcites [160] Sharma, 2018, Softedgenet: SDN based energy-efficient distributed network architecture for edge computing, IEEE Commun. Mag. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the Cloud allows users' access to storage, processing and networking resources in cost-effective ways, these centralised services can cause delays and performance problems for IoT devices that are far from the Cloud data centre.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For instance, PoW that solves a complex mathematical puzzle requiring massive computational capacity and power, is not appropriate for Fog miners [156].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [156] Kumar, 2019, Proof-of-work consensus approach in blockchain technology for cloud and fog computing using maximization-factorization statistics, IEEE Internet of Things J. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, this technology can reduce the amount of data uploaded to the remote Cloud servers.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, a full-featured blockchain cannot be implemented on the Fog nodes due to their restricted storage and computing resources, wide distribution, heterogeneous network, and nodes' selfish behaviour [155].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [155] Wang, 2019, Blockchain-based resource allocation model in fog computing, Appl. Sci. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This centralized SDN controller is vulnerable to various cyberattacks including DoS, and single point of failure attacks [158].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Southbound Interface:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [158] Chaudhary, 2019, Best: blockchain-based secure energy trading in SDN enabled intelligent transportation system, Comput. Secur. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cloud computing alone finds it challenging to handle the flood of information with the proliferation of IoT devices and their constant interactions.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, a technology like blockchain is required to maintain trust in a distributed Fog network where participants don't need to trust one another.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, patients need to perform the same test twice when they switch to different physicians.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain can provide an integrated solution for avoiding counterfeited drugs by making the entire drug distribution network traceable to all stakeholders at any point in the supply chain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain has an enormous potential to secure pharmaceutical supply chains.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Blockchain has appeared as a potential solution to this issue because of its decentralization and manipulation resistance characteristics [185].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.6. Blockchain enabled data sharing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [185] Liu, 2019, A blockchain-based medical data sharing and protection scheme, IEEE Access source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The security of eHealth systems is a vital issue because a security breach can endanger a patient's privacy, health, or even his or her life by maliciously altering diagnostic data [176].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [176] Kahani, 2016, Authentication and access control in e-health systems in the cloud
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The efficiency of accessing these data on the Cloud depends on the mechanism of encryption approach [203].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.10. Blockchain leveraged searchable encryption in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [203] Li, 2019, Blockchain-based searchable symmetric encryption scheme, Comput. Electr. Eng. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, Fog computing brings concerns regarding heterogeneous platform, security, privacy, trust, and resource management [209].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.11. Blockchain enabled eHealth architecture
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [209] A.A. Mutlag, M.K. Abd Ghani, N.A. Arunkumar, et al. Enabling technologies for fog computing in healthcare IoT systems. Future Generat. Comput. Syst.. 90: 62–78.. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Blockchain implementation requires immense computational power thanks to its mathematical principles such as cryptographic key systems, the Merkle Hash Tree and PoW [197].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.9. Lightweight blockchain in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [197] Liu, 2019, A lightweight blockchain system for industrial internet of things, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Searchable encryption (SE) which is a promising encryption technique guarantees data security, without compromising data searchability [96].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.10. Blockchain leveraged searchable encryption in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [96] Chen, 2019, Blockchain based searchable encryption for electronic health record sharing, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, a lot of transactions remain within the local network that blockchain would have to globally process.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this approach is not appropriate for transaction validation in time-sensitive service-oriented time tasks because the timesensitive services might be impacted by long latency.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IoT devices cannot directly host blockchain technology due to their limited processing and memory capacities.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Users are not always in a position to manage this influx of data [277].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4. Research gap and solutions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [277] Verame, 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Therefore, the software agent requires to be executed on Edge or Cloud servers that facilitate distributed environments [287].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [287] Uddin, 2019, A decentralized patient agent controlled blockchain for remote patient monitoring
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the research has been limited to address the user's privacy concerns.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“If the Gateway device containing the agent is stolen or hacked, operations of multiple IoT devices attached to the Gateway may be affected and come under various potential malicious attacks [286].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [286] Tuli, 2019, Next generation technologies for smart healthcare: challenges, vision, model, trends and future directions, Internet Technol. Lett. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, implementing a software agent on the smartphone or Gateway devices is hard as these devices may be linked to multiple IoT devices and sensors.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resource requirements for mining blocks on the P2P blockchain network outweigh the capabilities of resource-constrained IoT devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“IoT devices are equipped with limited bandwidth capabilities [288].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [288] Dai, 2019, Blockchain for internet of things: a survey, IEEE Internet of Things J. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, the inclusion of Patient Centric Agent [239] with eHealth framework can reduce the bandwidth requirements.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [239] Uddin, 2018, Continuous patient monitoring with a patient centric agent: a block architecture, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case, a significant number of transactions do not propagate throughout the P2P blockchain network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the bandwidth required to operate blockchain may exceed the upper thresholds of Edge servers.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“With the growing spread of IoT, the centralised IoT network structure poses the threat of numerous security vulnerabilities including data forgery, manipulation, and unauthorized access to devices by targeting Gateway services [290].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.3. To address connectivity challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [290] Gu, 2018, Location data record privacy protection based on differential privacy mechanism, Inf. Technol. Contr.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The work in Ref. [47] decentralized the Patient Centric Agent through replicating the agent at Smartphone in Body Area Sensor Networks, Near processing layer (Fog level), and Far processing layer (Cloud level).”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Uddin, 2020, Blockchain leveraged decentralized IoT ehealth framework, Internet of Things source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This nature of the blockchain networks theoretically makes IoT devices higher susceptible to security attacks [2].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.3. To address connectivity challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Ellouze, 2020, Blockchain for internet of medical things: a technical review
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Storing all health data on the chain for many patients is challenged with blockchain structure.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Patient monitoring systems continuously stream health data and transactions are more frequently created in such applications.
In the paper
“Uddin et al. [17] contributed to the creation of a system to track smart homes or cities securely using blockchain technology.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.3. To address connectivity challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Uddin, 2019, An efficient selective miner consensus protocol in blockchain oriented IoT smart monitoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, the end of the patient is often vulnerable to significant cyberattacks such as single point failure and denial of service.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, eHealth applications significantly differ from cryptocurrencies in the level of storage requirements [292].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [292] Krishnan, 2020
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The integration of homomorphic encryption with blockchain-based eHealth can potentially protect a patient's privacy in a decentralized model [282].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.5. Maintaining both transparency and privacy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [282] Shrestha, 2019, Integration of IoT with blockchain and homomorphic encryption: challenging issues and opportunities, Adv. Comput. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information processing on the blockchain nodes encounters the risk of leakage of data as plaintext data is shared and accessed with many nodes.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.5. Maintaining both transparency and privacy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the combination of blockchain technology and federated machine learning [294] can facilitate decentralized COVID-19 tracing applications without the need of centralised authority that can collect and share user's information with privacy and security.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.5. Maintaining both transparency and privacy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [294] Hard, 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 271
- It may state two separate claims as one. 119
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“(2) Blockchain could be a promising secured solution if IoT application requires to maintain payment process for its provided services without the control of third parties [149].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [149] Salah, 2019, Blockchain for AI: review and open research challenges, IEEE Access sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says blockchain can automate payments, create secure transaction records, and eliminate a centralized authority that verifies transactions. The paper also discusses IoT applications, but the passages found do not specifically address payments for services provided by an IoT application without third-party control. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“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.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [120] Rimba, 2020, Quantifying the cost of distrust: comparing blockchain and cloud services for business process execution, Inf. Syst. Front source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Due to the restricted power and storage resources of IoT devices, vast amounts of data streamed from many devices creates a bottleneck for the current IoT systems, which results in low QoS [8].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Yu, 2018, Blockchain-based solutions to security and privacy issues in the internet of things, IEEE Wireless Communications source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, scalability and communication cost issue of the blockchain were not investigated.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [169] Nguyen, 2019, A mobile cloud based IoMT framework for automated health assessment and management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The graph depicted in Fig. 19(a) shows that the largest percentages of research papers have been retrieved from IEEE Xplore, while the second-highest percentages of publications have been collected from various Journals of Elsevier publisher.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3. Blockchain state-of-the-art applications in IoT field
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of studies included in the paper were published in 2019.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3. Blockchain state-of-the-art applications in IoT field
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, the authors did not describe which kinds of simulation tools or programming language was used to conduct performance analysis.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.3. Blockchain for mHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [174] Ni, 2019, Healchain: a decentralized data management system for mobile healthcare using consortium blockchain
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The weakness of the article is that a smart contract for managing data storage has not been implemented.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.2. Blockchain for privacy preserving in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [90] Al Omar, 2019, Privacy-friendly platform for healthcare data in cloud based on blockchain environment, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, they overlooked security issues such as malicious attacks on IoT devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.3. Blockchain for mHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [173] Liang, 2017, Integrating blockchain for data sharing and collaboration in mobile healthcare applications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, the drawbacks of the research is that data security and the delay arising from ABE and access control approach were not analyzed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [83] Wang, 2018, A blockchain-based framework for data sharing with fine-grained access control in decentralized storage systems, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, blockchain prototype has not been implemented in the article.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [180] Wang, 2018, Secure cloud-based EHR system using attribute-based cryptosystem and blockchain, J. Med. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, a real prototype of the framework is yet to be implemented.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.2. Blockchain for privacy preserving in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [88] Liu, 2018, BPDS: a blockchain based privacy-preserving data sharing for electronic medical records
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The limitation of the work is that comparisons have not been made between smart contract-based schemes and traditional schemes, and the model was not implemented to analyze performances.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.2. Blockchain for privacy preserving in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [89] Kaur, 2018, A proposed solution and future direction for blockchain-based heterogeneous medicare data in cloud environment, J. Med. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To achieve a secure and efficient keyword search in the healthcare system, researchers have suggested merging blockchain technology with a traditional Cloud storage system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.10. Blockchain leveraged searchable encryption in eHealth
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To answer these issues, blockchain technology has been adapted in Fog enabled healthcare systems.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.11. Blockchain enabled eHealth architecture
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, a prototype of the framework is yet to be developed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182] Zheng, 2018, Blockchain-based personal health data sharing system using cloud storage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, the security and privacy was not addressed and accessing continuous health data onto the blockchain was not done.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.8. Blockchain smart contract in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [95] Daraghmi, 2019, Medchain: a design of blockchain-based system for medical records access and permissions management, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the model is conceptual, and no performance analysis was carried out.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [178] Islam, 2018, A conceptual framework for an IoT-based health assistant and its authorization model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The shortcoming of the article is that the performance analysis of the Cloud blockchain has not been investigated.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [94] Park, 2018, Corus: blockchain-based trustworthy evaluation system for efficacy of healthcare remedies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The limitation of the paper is that performance analysis has not been done.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182] Zheng, 2018, Blockchain-based personal health data sharing system using cloud storage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many recent studies indicate that blockchain architectures can provide seamless connectivity between clients and industrial applications in smart cities.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The authors did not describe how blockchain has been utilized in the proposed framework and no performance analysis has been conducted regarding blockchain, Fog and Cloud platform.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.11. Blockchain enabled eHealth architecture
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [208] Islam, 2019, A blockchain-based fog computing framework for activity recognition as an application to e-healthcare services, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Different blockchain related security attacks were not discussed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 10
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] Mytis-Gkometh, 2017, Notarization of knowledge retrieval from biomedical repositories using blockchain technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, the implementation of smart contract and security assessment has not been done.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [106] Yu, 2018, Decentralized big data auditing for smart city environments leveraging blockchain technology, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The prototype of the proposal was not implemented.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 10
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [101] Malamas, 2019, A forensics-by-design management framework for medical devices based on blockchain
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, a limitation of the work is that no access control has been designed for Cloud storage.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [217] Paul, 2018, IoT based secure smart city architecture using blockchain
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The performance of the blockchain was not covered in the article.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [213] Calvaresi, 2018, Multi-agent systems and blockchain: results from a systematic literature review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Full featured blockchain was not designed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The author did not demonstrate how weight is measured for a transaction which has been left as future work.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, how blockchain collaborated with SDN enabled switch and controller in the Fog layer is unclear.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shortcoming of the article is that the feasibility of the proposal was not studied.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The approach in Ref. [239] differs from this scheme with respect to local agents' functionalities.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach encounters several challenges including sustainability and security because there is no incentive mechanism to exchange information with other vehicles and there is no consensus mechanism that can increase users' level of trust.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No access control has been designed for the Cloud storage.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The setbacks of the proposal are that the security concerns for the Edge servers were not addressed and the architecture was not implemented for analysing performance.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The significant contribution of the paper is that the Cloud agent collects local detection model using blockchain smart contract and form a fusion attack detection model with higher accuracy.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the challenge of this approach is to ensure that the weight on the service is honestly set because a client can falsely claim higher priority for its transactions.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The basic premise of this scheme and the scheme in Ref. [239] are similar.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, how information classification was done has not been comprehensible.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their simulation results in the lowest cost of contact and suitable scheduling compared with other approaches to offloading.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Storing transactions related to dynamic execution parameters increases power consumption and throughput of the task offloading approach.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The adoption of blockchain in IoT can overcome the single point of failure and serve as an adequate means to securely and efficiently store and process IoT data [8].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Yu, 2018, Blockchain-based solutions to security and privacy issues in the internet of things, IEEE Wireless Communications source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, elimination of the blockchain PoW consensus mechanism can reduce power consumption and improve performance [17].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Uddin, 2019, An efficient selective miner consensus protocol in blockchain oriented IoT smart monitoring
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This infrastructure guarantees stable and efficient blockchain operations with the benefits of tamper resistance and reduces single point of failure vulnerabilities [37].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.1. Basics of blockchain technology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Zorzo, 2018, Dependable IoT using blockchain-based technology
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Zhou et al. [11] reported that the entire Bitcoin network absorbs considerably more energy than several nations, including Austria and Colombia.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Zhou, 2020, Solutions to scalability of blockchain: a survey, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Connectivity challenges of IoT [20]: The IoT devices are expected to be connected to high computing storage and networking resources to share IoT data with potential stakeholders.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Atlam, 2019, Technical aspects of blockchain and IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Current IoT laws and regulations are becoming outdated especially with the advent of new disruptive technology such as blockchain and need to be revised to undertake the DTL [25].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Reyna, 2018, On blockchain and its integration with IoT. Challenges and opportunities, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While this decentralized storage structure improves efficiency, solves the bottleneck problem and removes the need for third-party trust [21], the management of IoT data on the blockchain puts a burden on participants' storage space.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Karafiloski, 2017, Blockchain solutions for big data challenges: a literature review
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bitcoin's energy consumption is compared with the domestic power consumption of Ireland, which IoT devices cannot undertake [16].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] O'Dwyer, 2014, Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The rapid synchronization of new blocks among blockchain nodes in a chain-structured ledger requires a higher amount of bandwidth, which can improve blockchain throughput [11,19].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Zhou, 2020, Solutions to scalability of blockchain: a survey, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [19] Dwivedi, 2019, Optimized blockchain model for Internet of Things based healthcare applications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To avoid fraud-related activities such as double-spending attacks, the trustworthiness of the block must be checked, and the data flow should be controlled to ensure the smooth exchange of information [63].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [63] Firdaus, 2019, The rise of “blockchain”: bibliometric analysis of blockchain study, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In IoT systems, the IoT devices continuously stream data which results in high concurrency [18].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Sharma, 2020, Blockchain technology toward green IoT: opportunities and challenges, IEEE Network source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The P2P network ensures that all nodes can discover and connect each other to propagate blocks throughout the network and synchronize the valid current state of the blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.3. The network layer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Full nodes ensure that transactions and blocks are checked and validated using rules prescribed in the consensus mechanism, which is also called mining.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.3. The network layer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The PoA is applicable for private blockchain and scalable since the limited numbers of pre-approved validators.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [72] De Angelis, 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Otherwise, either the message or signature has been altered or the digest has not been decrypted with the private key of the corresponding public key.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.1.1. Digital signature
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If both digests are identical, the data has not been changed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.1.1. Digital signature
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each shard consists of its own nodes or validators that apply a PoW or staking or voting consensus mechanism.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.3. The network layer
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Sharding [75] that partitions a P2P network is introduced to improve blockchain's performance.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.3. The network layer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Yu, 2020, Survey: sharding in blockchains, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, each block in the distributed ledger always has a distinctive cryptographic signature associated with a timestamp which makes the ledger auditable and unchangeable.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.1. The data layer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, a group of rich nodes can dominate the network and decide who will be the witness.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This eliminates the need for the central control point, resulting in a high level of equity among the participants of the blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.1. The data layer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“LPoS has been suggested to overcome the drawbacks of standard PoS.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] Hakak, 2020, Securing smart cities through blockchain technology: architecture, requirements, and challenges, IEEE Network source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Light nodes can only store the header of the blockchain (keys) while the full nodes store the complete distributed ledger.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.3. The network layer
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, a bandwidth measurement scheme is adopted to estimate the bandwidth that each participant contributes to the blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.2.2. The consensus layer
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Public blockchains are mostly reliable if the users strictly abide by the rules and regulations of the blockchain [86].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [86] Pan, 2018, Edgechain: an edge-IoT framework and prototype based on blockchain and smart contracts, IEEE Internet of Things J. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the blockchain can store and track the past records of a patient that are important for patient's care.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Malicious access can be verified and disabled using smart contract-based authorisation.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain data is usually stored in multiple nodes on the P2P network, and the system is highly resistant to technological failures and malicious attacks.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.3. Objectives of blockchain technology in IoT
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The validators in public blockchain are unlimited and can not be trustworthy whereas a premeditated number of validators process transactions in the private blockchain which results in higher throughput and ensure strong privacy of users' data on the private distributed ledger.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain enables users to define access rules for self-executing smart contracts, which guarantees the privacy and ownership of personal data.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sidechain with its own protocols and implementation can independently run and is completely isolated from the main chain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To alter a single transaction record, all subsequent records would need to be modified and colluding would be needed for the entire network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Greater Transparency:
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, if the main chain is hacked or compromised, the sidechain can still operate likewise, the cyberattacks on the sidechain cannot affect the operation of the main chain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a transaction is submitted on a public blockchain, the transaction is tamper-proof and can never be altered or modified while a committed transaction can be updated in a private blockchain following consensus of a certain number of authorized participants.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to that, information is stored across a network of computers rather than on a single server, which stops hackers from compromising transaction data.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.3. Objectives of blockchain technology in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, smart contract services offer data provenance to users.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To set up a network, public blockchains require no infrastructure costs, while private blockchains need wide-scale deployment and operational costs [119].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] Yang, 2020, Public and private blockchain in construction business process and information integration, Autom. ConStruct. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Goods traded in a complex supply chain using a traditional ledger cannot be traced back to their point of origin as quickly in other systems as in blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another important blockchain type is called consortium blockchain, which is a semi-decentralized and governed by a group rather than a single entity.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The sidechain [121] refers to a separate blockchain which operates in parallel to the main blockchain and the sidechain is attached to the main chain by means of a two-way peg.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Reference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [121] Singh, 2020, Sidechain technologies in blockchain networks: an examination and state-of-the-art review, J. Netw. Comput. Appl. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, all blockchain users have fair rights over the network to link, verify and track transaction activities.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Greater Transparency:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Historical data transactions in blockchain can assist in checking the authenticity of assets and avoiding fraudulent activities.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This enables data owners to control the exchange of their data on blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In blockchains, the main element of security is the utilization of PKI (private/public key infrastructure).”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.3. Objectives of blockchain technology in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, blockchain has an ability to transform how confidential information is shared to prevent fraud and illegal activities in any sector where protecting sensitive data from different applications including financial services, government, and healthcare is important.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Tool
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain archives data transactions and events in an integrity-preserved, authenticity-guaranteed manner by means of immutable hash chains and digital signatures.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, data on a blockchain is more accurate, robust and transparent than on the conventional network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Greater Transparency:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immutability: Transaction data on the blockchain remains immutable over time.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The processing of a transaction involves various steps, including defining heavy security, mining, validating, and storing it across multiple participants [147].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [147] Jabbar, 2020, Investigating the link between transaction and computational costs in a blockchain environment, Int. J. Prod. Res. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given complex IoT scenarios such as smart cities, eHealth, IoT data is enormous.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain users do not need to review too much paperwork to complete a transaction, as each party has access to a single, and unchangeable ledger.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blockchain does not require third parties or middleman and infrastructure's deployment cost for public blockchain to guarantee business operations, which can reduce the cost of operating business [142].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [142] Bodkhe, 2020, Blockchain for industry 4.0: a comprehensive review, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cost reduction is one of the main aims for many businesses.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Essentially, the blockchain allows users to monitor transactions across the network so that computer and data rights are retained.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, block time increases rapidly, reducing the overall system performance.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One field of a new block's header always holds the hash value of metadata of the previous block, which makes the chain strongly immutable [143].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Data Privacy:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [143] Tanwar, 2020, Blockchain-based electronic healthcare record system for healthcare 4.0 applications, J. Inform. Secur. Appl.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wood et al. [146] reported the cost of completing a transaction as the computational cost of a blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [146] Wood, 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IoT network is often susceptible to security vulnerabilities including DDoS, Ransomware and malicious attacks.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are a variety of mining techniques such as PoW, PoS, pBFT described above that require various levels of energy.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In a Sybil attack, the malicious nodes create several identities to either flood the network with transactions or make false statements, such as fake traffic congestion [7,10].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Michelin, 2018, Speedychain: a framework for decoupling data from blockchain for smart cities
- Not checked yetcites [10] Huang, 2019, Towards secure industrial IoT: blockchain system with credit-based consensus mechanism, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DDoS attacks are difficult to conduct on a network of blockchains.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although blockchain can withstand major security attacks such as Sybil, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS), selfish mining and Ransomware attacks, the existing blockchain has some inherent security flaws.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, PoW, which is the most decentralized mining process, solves a complicated mathematical puzzle that requires powerful computational hardware to perform transaction validation.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Selfish mining is a bitcoin mining strategy in which groups of miners collaborate to increase their earnings.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A miner (or group of miners) tends to increase their revenue through selfish mining by strategically withholding and releasing blocks into the network [36].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Kang, 2019, Toward secure blockchain-enabled internet of vehicles: optimizing consensus management using reputation and contract theory, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without robust monitoring of transactions, blockchain can be at risk of data loss and network disruption.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure integrity has become the key research issue in IoT applications, as IoT source code is stored by internet third parties and telecommunications companies that result in lack of trust among consumers.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This would trigger consumer's concerns about high running costs that would limit large scale implementation of blockchain-based systems.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although blockchain and IoT can support safe data sharing, storing all genres of health data on a blockchain causes a delay in committing transactions and risks data leakage and disclosure of patient's sensitive information.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, as the number of devices joining in an IoT network increases, a bottleneck problem can occur in the existing centralised systems while authenticating, approving, and connecting new nodes within the network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure integrity has become the key research issue in IoT applications, as IoT source code is stored by internet third parties and telecommunications companies that result in lack of trust among consumers.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the solutions of these IoT problems, blockchain known as DTL has emerged a breakthrough technology to potentially address some of the IoT security, privacy, and scalability problems.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If more than half of the machines running blockchain can control computing resources, they can alter consensus processes and stop the confirmation of new transactions for malicious purposes.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“(1) Blockchain can resolve privacy and security issue if an IoT application needs a decentralized P2P ecosystem.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148] Kamran, 2020, Blockchain and internet of things: a bibliometric study, Comput. Electr. Eng. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even for IoT devices with fairly large computational capabilities, the sophistication of the blockchain system will demand heavy technical and human resources.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Still, blockchain technology is susceptible to a message hijack, and DDoS attacks and these attacks are the most common on blockchain networks [32].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Alladi, 2019, Blockchain applications for industry 4.0 and industrial IoT: a review, IEEE Access source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With BCIoT paradigm, no single organisation has control over the vast amount of data generated by IoT devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, data leakage is rapidly detected and remedied.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, security and privacy of the IoT ecosystem are significant concerns which have impeded its deployment on a broader scale.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, blockchain technology enables participants to follow up on past transactions.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DDoS attackers attempt to disrupt the network's mining process, e-wallets, crypto exchanges and other financial services.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain can secure data sharing across Cloud IoT enabled healthcare networks, in which blockchain and Cloud are the key contributors to manage user access and data sharing.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, blockchain can be combined with distributed Cloud computing to make data storage and processing more scalable and efficient amongst IoT devices, homeowners, and external users.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, the use of blockchain models in the health sector will transform healthcare delivery into better patient service and system security.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, blockchain's smart contracts can automate controlling and authentication of any entry in the blockchain, ensuring security and protection for insecure healthcare settings.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, Cloud computing has virtually unlimited storage and computational resources that can deliver on-demand, reliable, and secure IoT services.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cloud computing has virtually unlimited storage and computational resources.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attackers can discover the identities of users or devices by analysing transaction pattern.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“(3) If IoT applications demand to preserve logs and traceability of sequential transactions, the blockchain can be one of the most effective solutions.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148] Kamran, 2020, Blockchain and internet of things: a bibliometric study, Comput. Electr. Eng. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With its high-security features, blockchain shows its high efficiency in managing smart city operations.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, blockchain can provide advanced security services for smart cities applications.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain has the potential to transform clinical services, such as health monitoring, patient diagnosis or medical intervention assessment.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common means of storing and processing data is a central database in many existing systems.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The convergence of blockchain and Cloud computing enables smart city architectures to tackle the issue of security and system performance.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) One of the key challenges of integrating IoT with blockchain is how the vast quantities of data produced by many IoT sensors can be handled in on-chain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Another key issue is to preserve network privacy and transaction confidentiality: the anonymity of transaction history cannot be granted on public blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain platforms offer smart services such as home surveillance, home management, and device access control in smart home scenarios.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain can provide specialized, highly reliable, and productive health care services.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The integration of Cloud computing with IoT and blockchain opens up a new paradigm named BCCoT, which will transfer applications' operation into a safe environment.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the blockchain suffers from potentially lower speeds or high latency when processing transactions.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.5. Blockchain and Internet of Things (BCIoT)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the Edge and Fog computing systems bring facilitates of data processing closer to the data source, and data does not need to be sent to a remote Cloud or other centralised processing systems.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fog devices require mutual trust and protection along with the facilities of distributed computing as Fog devices are owned and managed by diverse entities [116].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116] Kochovski, 2019, Trust management in a blockchain based fog computing platform with trustless smart oracles, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, unlike conventional networks, routing decisions in SDN are made remotely on a controller instead of on each router.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.8. SDN and blockchain technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SDN architecture depicted in Fig. 16 comprises three planes: 1) Application, 2) Control and 3) Data plane.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.8. SDN and blockchain technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This decreases the distance required for forwarding data and improves response time for the services, especially for a remote mission-critical application.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, Cloud of Things can transform the current IoT system into a system with minimal managerial effort, high efficiency and quality of service.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“SDN [157] isolates network control functions from the forwarding functions so that the network can be dynamic, structured, and programmatically configured to improve its performance and monitoring.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.8. SDN and blockchain technology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [157] Schaller, 2017, Software defined networking architecture standardization, Comput. Stand. Interfac. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fog computing is a distributed platform that raises the challenges of guaranteeing privacy and security for the Fog devices and their affiliated IoT devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cloud analytical tools can support a variety of IoT operations, including historical data processing, information storage and statistical analysis.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.6. Blockchain and Cloud of Things (BCCoT)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Fog computing has emerged on the Internet of Everything (IoE) to reduce energy consumption for IoT devices and significantly increase the processing time of the client's services [154].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [154] Singh, 2020, Blockchain and fog based architecture for internet of everything in smart cities, Future Internet source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Basically, blockchains eliminate the need for an independent third party and can be undertaken in highly decentralized environments, where all parties including IoT devices, Edge/Fog and Cloud servers need a high degree of autonomy during operation [116].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116] Kochovski, 2019, Trust management in a blockchain based fog computing platform with trustless smart oracles, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SDN differ from traditional networks in several ways.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.8. SDN and blockchain technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, several other protocols such as PoS, pBFT consensus are suggested for the Fog network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.7. Blockchain and Fog of Things (BCFoT)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, a decentralized SDN controller raises some issues including the problem of maintaining state consistency among multiple SDN controllers, static flow control between the SDN controller and forwarding plane, which causes a non-uniform distribution of loads between the replicated SDN controllers [159].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Southbound Interface:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [159] Sharma, 2017, Distblocknet: a distributed blockchains-based secure SDN architecture for IoT networks, IEEE Commun. Mag. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Malpractice within healthcare such as compelling patients to perform tests and purchases medicines from physician's preferred clinics or hospitals arises in many countries from a lack of adequate national policies and regulations [167].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [167] Rathee, 2019, A hybrid framework for multimedia data processing in IoT-healthcare using blockchain technology, Multimed. Tool. Appl. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a patient having access to his past history could avoid the duplication of medical records, and unnecessary medical tests.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1. State-of-the-art works of blockchain assisted IoT eHealth
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain provides patients with the ability to boost the authorization and integrity of patient data.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1. State-of-the-art works of blockchain assisted IoT eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process can provide users with better security than that of the approach to store all data blocks in a centralized server and hash value/pointer of data block on the chain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Southbound Interface:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lightweight multi-chain enabled decentralized SDN-IoT architecture depicted in Fig. 17 was suggested to address the issues of the current SDN based IoT architecture.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Southbound Interface:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, only a few countries, including Estonia, Peru, have already adopted blockchain health management in practice.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.1. Blockchain for hospital and drug management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Only a few countries, including Estonia and Peru, have already adopted blockchain health management in practice.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain leveraged healthcare can reform and promote interoperability, authorized access to patient medical records, secure tracking of prescriptions, hospitals assets, and wearable sensors during their entire life cycle.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1. State-of-the-art works of blockchain assisted IoT eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most current eHealth settings, patients do not have access to EMRs of the healthcare providers.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1. State-of-the-art works of blockchain assisted IoT eHealth
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The adoption of the blockchain paradigm in eHealth can effectively address critical issues of security and privacy, and increase service efficacy to promote patient care and gradual transformation of existing health systems into decentralized eHealth [161][162][163][164].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1. State-of-the-art works of blockchain assisted IoT eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [161][162][163][164]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain can dramatically impact the efficiency in healthcare delivery and costs by providing the patient with full control over his or her past medical records including reports, financial documents, laboratory test results, imaging studies of x-rays, CAT scans, and vital sign measurements.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1. State-of-the-art works of blockchain assisted IoT eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Preserving privacy in eHealth system can make contact efficient between physician and patient, which is crucial for quality treatment, improved autonomy and tackling economic damage, embarrassment and discrimination [171].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.2. Blockchain for privacy preserving in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [171] Nass, 2009, The value and importance of health information privacy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Naturally, health systems need to implement fine-grained access control [177].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [177] Lu, 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain can preserve the integrity of data while ensuring it remains tamper-proof.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The storage cost in the on-chain method is low because the size of the hash value is relatively small [184].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [184] Xu, 2017, A taxonomy of blockchain-based systems for architecture design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain platform can facilitate the exchange of healthcare professional's expertise for more precise medical care, personal diagnosis, and treatment.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.6. Blockchain enabled data sharing in eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain can be an automated technological solution to make the current storage method for health data more secure and effective.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This openness of blockchain is a major threat to the privacy of patients in the eHealth system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.2. Blockchain for privacy preserving in eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain-based health data management is a transparent and open framework to support better healthcare services.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.6. Blockchain enabled data sharing in eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On-chain storage is considered neither financially nor technologically feasible.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, health data are sensitive and need protection against unauthorized access.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.10. Blockchain leveraged searchable encryption in eHealth
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, the combination of Cloud, IoT, and blockchain can offer great advancements in smart medical services [187].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.6. Blockchain enabled data sharing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [187] Du, 2018, A medical information service platform based on distributed cloud and blockchain
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, outsourcing tasks to a Cloud computing provider bring a few other challenges.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The decentralized ledger in the blockchain technology increases the reliability of recorded documents and the efficiency of the proposed crowdsourcing system [94].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [94] Park, 2018, Corus: blockchain-based trustworthy evaluation system for efficacy of healthcare remedies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Also, the client needs to make contracts with the service provider so that the data privacy cannot be breached [192].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [192] Zhang, 2018, Cloud storage for electronic health records based on secret sharing with verifiable reconstruction outsourcing, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Blockchain, a revolutionary decentralized model, can be adapted not only to remove the limitations of the conventional crowdsourcing schemes but also to usher technological advancements including decentralization and transparency [193,195].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fog computing has many benefits and is suited for applications that require fast response time, low latency, and real-time processing, for specially healthcare [47,208].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.11. Blockchain enabled eHealth architecture
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Uddin, 2020, Blockchain leveraged decentralized IoT ehealth framework, Internet of Things source
- Not checked yetcites [208] Islam, 2019, A blockchain-based fog computing framework for activity recognition as an application to e-healthcare services, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The convergence of IoT, Fog and Cloud computing has accelerated the advent of many sophisticated applications including eHealth, agriculture, supply chain, an automatic vehicle with the benefits of enhanced QoS.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.2. Blockchain assisted smart cities/home management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Cloud service provider might be curious about a user's sensitive data and breach the client's privacy.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, most current such schemes, particularly the searchable public-key encryption (SPE) schemes are vulnerable to the adaptive leakage-exploiting attacks or unable to meet the efficiency requirements of realistic applications [96].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.10. Blockchain leveraged searchable encryption in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [96] Chen, 2019, Blockchain based searchable encryption for electronic health record sharing, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Health data is typically encrypted before uploading to the Cloud storage.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.10. Blockchain leveraged searchable encryption in eHealth
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most importantly, IoT devices are typically inadequate in performance.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.9. Lightweight blockchain in eHealth
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Smart contract stored in the public ledger is automatically running on the blockchain without the need of the third party when the contract associated event is triggered [196].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.8. Blockchain smart contract in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [196] Macrinici, 2018, Smart contract applications within blockchain technology: a systematic mapping study, Telematics Inf. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Crowdsourcing on the traditional platform is exposed to several shortcomings such as a single point of failure, controller's silent misbehaviour, a conflict of opinions between the task requesters and the workers [193].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.7. Blockchain enabled outsourcing in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193] Zhu, 2019, zkCrowd: a hybrid blockchain-based crowdsourcing platform, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the advent of Fog, Cloud and IoT technology, a new business paradigm has evolved that enables customers to use cities/home's resources optimally to provide them with a wide range of services.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In chain structured blockchain, a block is propagated throughout the network after a miner completes PoW for the block.This brings its problem with scalability and high network overhead.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.9. Lightweight blockchain in eHealth
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model can also increase resource utilization, and reduce operating”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.2. Blockchain assisted smart cities/home management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With the rapid development of Cloud computing, the original storage way of health data has been changed [96].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.10. Blockchain leveraged searchable encryption in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [96] Chen, 2019, Blockchain based searchable encryption for electronic health record sharing, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“With the emergence of blockchain, smart contracts have become one of the most sought-after technologies because of their automated nature [196].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.8. Blockchain smart contract in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [196] Macrinici, 2018, Smart contract applications within blockchain technology: a systematic mapping study, Telematics Inf. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the existing systems can provide smart home devices with fast connectivity and safe communication, those are centralised and have problems with scalability.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thanks to the distinctive nature of IoT devices, the design of smart cities infrastructure remains challenges, including ensuring anonymity, completeness, and bottleneck issues [216].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [216] Sookhak, 2018, Security and privacy of smart cities: a survey, research issues and challenges, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cloud third parties store, process and manage the home data, which is often vulnerable to one single point of failure [214,215].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [214] Alessio, 2014, On the integration of cloud computing and internet of things
- Not checked yetcites [215] Stojkoska, 2017, A review of internet of things for smart home: challenges and solutions, J. Clean. Prod. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the blockchain with attractive technological features, Cloud, and Fog computing can be a promising paradigm to opt smart cities/home services.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Cloud computing powered by a blockchain with distributed, secured and private properties [218] can provide a promising solution to these concerns.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [218] AbuNaser, 2019, Advanced survey of blockchain for the internet of things smart home
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the current smart homes depend on third parties to provide different services to the resident, and in these systems, the resident has little control over his data.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While smart homes can provide residents with several advantages, there remain several challenges including malicious attacks and privacy issues to be resolved.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Decentralized systems such as blockchain and smart contracts have been regarded as a potential means of addressing these problems.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite having such a vision of smart cities, ensuring high quality and security for smart city services has appeared to be difficult.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain is unstable on IoT devices due to its resource constraints.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > costs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to the regulations, a service provider must incorporate facilities of the user's consent and the withdrawal of that consents in their system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] Marelli, 2020, Fit for purpose? The GDPR and the governance of European digital health, Pol. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Further, the service provider must also provide the customer with all the data in a format that is readable on the computer.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] Marelli, 2020, Fit for purpose? The GDPR and the governance of European digital health, Pol. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“GDPR health regulations [181] outlined privacy laws across Europe to protect user's control and confidentiality on his or her health data.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] Marelli, 2020, Fit for purpose? The GDPR and the governance of European digital health, Pol. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The service provider must generate a report at the request of the user on how the user's data is being processed and used.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.4. Blockchain leveraged access control in eHealth
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] Marelli, 2020, Fit for purpose? The GDPR and the governance of European digital health, Pol. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“State-of-the-art works in the blockchain proposed a variation of PoW to overcome the limitations of the generic blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Malicious users or drivers can falsely report their locations in such a system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The traffic jam prediction model assists users' vehicles to avoid congestion on the road.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, a large number of IoT transactions propagate in the blockchain networks and cause higher energy consumption.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“IoT devices need to associate them with a secure software agent when switching from one area to another [182,240].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182] Zheng, 2018, Blockchain-based personal health data sharing system using cloud storage
- Not checked yetcites [240] de Meo, 2014, Recommending users in social networks by integrating local and global reputation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the present credit-based system is not adequate to facilitate transactions for such autonomous intelligent transport system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The integration of Cloud with virtually unlimited storage, Fog computing with processing capabilities and blockchain with high-security feature revamps smart transport security and service quality.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These technologies can either combinedly or individually meet the major IoT network requirements with high performance.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, not all users might be motivated to share their sensitive information about routes and locations with crowdsourcing without sufficient incentives.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such prediction model requires live traffic data, users' location and participants' private details including their name, and phone number that are sensitive.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Google maps use crowdsourcing for data pertaining to live traffic congestion.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With Multi-Agent System (MAS), a software agent working on half of IoT devices is an efficient way to promote social interactions among intelligent devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain with Cloud, Fog and IoT can build a stable, reliable, and decentralized intelligent transport ecosystem.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The block, in addition to transactions in the block is verified and confirmed by the blockchain nodes.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IoT devices produce vast numbers of transactions at a higher rate, but the current blockchain cannot process those transactions at the same rate.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, IoT devices are often unknown, and unreferenced and the traditional approach of asking other trusted agents for information is usually impracticable.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, to apply PoS in a new distributed application is challenging because nodes in the network do not own any stake or cryptocurrency to burn in the initial stage.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PoS, PoB (Proof of Burn), and PoET follow the similar principle of PoW.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, IoT devices generally have no accurate information available regarding the agents of a new environment.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.1. Agent managed blockchain in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current IoT networking is confronted with many challenges including security, huge traffic, high availability, high reliability, high bandwidth, and limited energy.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The incorporation of Cloud, Fog computing, and blockchain can achieve efficient and secure connectivity in automated vehicular networks.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.3. Blockchain assisted IoT vehicular network
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The miners select a certain number of unconfirmed transactions from the Pool in a random fashion or based on a fee in order to make a block.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In blockchain technology, all transactions generated in the P2P network is stored in a Transactions Pool.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.2. Blockchain for SDN enabled IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most existing IoT architecture maintains a centralized data centre for storing and processing sensors' data, which can be at risk of breaching security, single-point failure and malicious attacks like DDoS, Sybil attack [8,10,273].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4. Research gap and solutions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Yu, 2018, Blockchain-based solutions to security and privacy issues in the internet of things, IEEE Wireless Communications source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Huang, 2019, Towards secure industrial IoT: blockchain system with credit-based consensus mechanism, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. source
- Not checked yetcites [273] Yu, 2010, Sybillimit: a near-optimal social network defense against sybil attacks, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SDN flexibility carries many security threats including unavailability of routing information to forwarding devices when forwarding devices fail to communicate with SDN controller due to the programmable interface being used illegally, and hidden vulnerabilities of a new complex system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Distributed storage of blockchain P2P enables the restoration of flow tables of a node during a network failure.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remote Fog Agents can lie about their static and dynamic execution parameters.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The users require to pay a certain amount to miner nodes for adding every microtransaction in the blockchain which can demotivate them to participate in data offloading.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mobile devices can discharge data traffic to a Fog layer to extend their network transmission bandwidths.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To cope with this issue, mobile data offloading to Fog or Cloud servers is a promising solution.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, there involves a lot of microtransactions between the service providers and users in mobile data offloading.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Various network attacks are involved in SDN controllers, OpenFlow switches, and host interfaces.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the robustness of the blockchain network is enhanced, by adding more miners.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mobile devices can access the Edge servers to expand their computing capabilities.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mobile and IoT devices are usually restricted to local computing resources.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Edge computing has been seen as a promising solution for mobile blockchain applications, which can bring several benefits.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To realize economical benefits on a mobile system, Edge providers need to set optimized pricing levels for the Edge computing services.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As user's reliance on the Internet rises, traditional network designs with static characteristics will eventually fail to meet all requirements.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, network operators require heavy investment to constantly expand the capabilities of network infrastructure with the rapid rise of mobile devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in unavailability of service and the deluge of sensor data and thus outweighs the important advantages of the IoT system.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4. Research gap and solutions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exponential growth of mobile phones, the management of huge mobile data traffic requires a secure and fast network connection to boost QoS for consumers.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mobile devices can also discharge computing tasks to the Fog layer to release their workloads.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These devices require to offload computational tasks to the Cloud/Fog to perform PoW.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the blockchain with its conventional consensus mechanism lacks scalability and limit the performances of mobile data offloading process.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conventional algorithms for unloading mobile data do not have any mechanism to inspire or enable mobile devices or users to engage actively in the offloading process.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, smartphone users can achieve a reward for executing a consensus mechanism of the blockchain by utilizing Edge resources.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generic blockchain was suggested to form a P2P network for facilitating mobile data offloading securely.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.4. Blockchain for mobile IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, an infected controller can deliver misleading and deceptive instructions to OpenFlow switches by inserting and changing flow rules.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.3. Blockchain for securing SDN IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, such software agent needs a platform that can facilitate virtualization, encryption, data storage and high computational power for running accurate blockchain algorithms”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With MAS, a software agent working on half of IoT devices is an efficient way to promote social interactions between intelligent devices.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The notion of integrating blockchain and IoT has recently gained significant popularity among the researchers to exploit such hybrid architectures to address the aforementioned issues.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4. Research gap and solutions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This research addressed the connectivity issue of IoT devices with blockchain but high power and bandwidth consumption required for the blockchain remain unsolved in the proposal.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“IoT devices are manufactured with limited computational power and memory capacities, while blockchain technology requires an excessive level of storage and power [285].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [285] Atlam, 2018, Blockchain with internet of things: benefits, challenges, and future directions, Int. J. Intell. Syst. Appl.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the adoption of the blockchain technology into IoT applications poses a couple of challenges outlined in Fig. 21 such as different mining rate, and imbalanced resources capacity between IoT devices and the blockchain nodes.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4. Research gap and solutions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Researchers [15,213,[274][275][276] suggested autonomous agents adopt blockchain technology in various IoT ecosystems including healthcare, smart cities, smart home and electric energy trading which are regulated and managed by the autonomous agents on behalf of users.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4. Research gap and solutions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15,213,[274][275][276]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Qayumi et al. [275] proposed multi-agent to solve the scalability issue of the blockchain-based architecture but did not describe how this can be achieved.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [275] Qayumi, 2015, Multi-agent based intelligence generation from very large datasets
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The convergence of blockchain technologies and multi-agents such as an agent for environmental protection, energy trading and monitoring patients can handle sensitive data to advocate transparency and trustworthy interactions for consumers and service providers [213].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [213] Calvaresi, 2018, Multi-agent systems and blockchain: results from a systematic literature review
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An Edge-based personalized Agent can be appointed for each sharding where the agent collects transactions from IoT devices and make blocks to further reduce high bandwidth requirements of the blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > SL No Challenge Prospective Solution 1 Resource limitations of IoT to accommodate blockchain technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“IoT devices need to associate them with a secure software agent when switching from one area to another [182,240].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182] Zheng, 2018, Blockchain-based personal health data sharing system using cloud storage
- Not checked yetcites [240] de Meo, 2014, Recommending users in social networks by integrating local and global reputation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these works are still at a preliminary stage and will be developed in future.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To address the connectivity issue of IoT with blockchain, the MEC (Multi-access Edge Computing) can host sidechain which is close to the IoT network and enables the IoT devices to communicate with mainchain via the sidechain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > SL No Challenge Prospective Solution 1 Resource limitations of IoT to accommodate blockchain technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in avoiding the propagation of a transaction across the entire network and hence can save bandwidth.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > SL No Challenge Prospective Solution 1 Resource limitations of IoT to accommodate blockchain technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Machine learning and artificially intelligent technology typically form a basis for the creation of an autonomous agent to process and automatically identify action on the data streaming from sensors or online sources [213].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > Table 15
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [213] Calvaresi, 2018, Multi-agent systems and blockchain: results from a systematic literature review
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recently, Edge-devices augmented with IoT devices might have sufficient bandwidth.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, a performance analysis of the Markov decision process for selecting Edge-Cloud providers was partially completed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.8. Blockchain for IoT trust management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116] Kochovski, 2019, Trust management in a blockchain based fog computing platform with trustless smart oracles, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Patient Centric Agent in Ref. [239] operates on the patient's hardware at the end of the patient and creates collaboration between the blockchain and the sensor networks in the patient's body [287].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [239] Uddin, 2018, Continuous patient monitoring with a patient centric agent: a block architecture, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [287] Uddin, 2019, A decentralized patient agent controlled blockchain for remote patient monitoring
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The blockchain has been used for maintaining the trust of Edge-Cloud but other security requirements such as data integrity, confidentiality and availability have not been addressed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.8. Blockchain for IoT trust management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116] Kochovski, 2019, Trust management in a blockchain based fog computing platform with trustless smart oracles, Future Generat. Comput. Syst. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Trust module is yet to be included in the system to make it sustainable.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [86] Pan, 2018, Edgechain: an edge-IoT framework and prototype based on blockchain and smart contracts, IEEE Internet of Things J. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, the system has a centralised blockchain controller at the end of the patient and decentralized blockchain storage at the other end.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [239] Uddin, 2018, Continuous patient monitoring with a patient centric agent: a block architecture, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Performance analysis has not been conducted for the proposal.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [272] Seitz, 2018, Fog computing as enabler for blockchain-based IIoT app marketplaces-a case study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the Patient Centric Agent [239] does not directly transmit transactions to the blockchain network; instead, it creates blocks by organizing a certain number of transactions.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [239] Uddin, 2018, Continuous patient monitoring with a patient centric agent: a block architecture, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The performance of the system was not analyzed with respect to power consumption, throughput and other parameters.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [111] Debe, 2019, Lot public fog nodes reputation system: a decentralized solution using ethereum blockchain, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the Patient Centric Agent can optimize the consensus mechanism to reduce the bandwidth in the blockchain network.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The performance of the system has not been analyzed with respect to power consumption and throughput.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [99] Debe, 2020, Monetization of services provided by public fog nodes using blockchain and smart contracts, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Ref. [17]'s settings, the IoT devices are connected to blockchain via the smart Agent [17] which implements a couple of security protocol to safeguard IoT devices from cyberattacks.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.3. To address connectivity challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Uddin, 2019, An efficient selective miner consensus protocol in blockchain oriented IoT smart monitoring
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The health data continuously streamed from wearable devices escalate the challenges.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“To process patient's records rapidly, a lightweight modified PoS consensus protocol for the blockchain was constructed using the Fuzzy Inference Method.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Uddin, 2020, Blockchain leveraged decentralized IoT ehealth framework, Internet of Things source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Patient Centric Agent in Refs.[47,280] replicated at the three levels enables outsourcing patient's tasks to Edge and Cloud nodes while preserving privacy and security.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Uddin, 2020, Blockchain leveraged decentralized IoT ehealth framework, Internet of Things source
- Not checked yetcites [280] Uddin, 2019, Blockchain leveraged task migration in body area sensor networks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In this architecture depicted in Fig. 24, along with the smart agent and the blockchain component, the article [17] included an extra network manager module to encrypt user data using sign encryption that preserves user privacy.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.3. To address connectivity challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Uddin, 2019, An efficient selective miner consensus protocol in blockchain oriented IoT smart monitoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The data blocks which processing demands the blockchain-based secure storage are directed to the distributed ledger.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Decentralizing Patient Agent in eHealth architecture results in software sustainability and allows the rapid and secure storage of medical data without the trusted authorities from third parties.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other repositories such as EHR, EMR, Cloud eHealth can be recommended as per the requirements of various data blocks.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Here, the authors [281] contributed to enabling the Patient Centric Agent for building machine learning-based recommendation model for health data storage that can accommodate data storage requirements, and patient preferences and make storage decisions rapidly, in real-time, even with streamed data.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The consensus mechanism for data processing in remote patient management was incorporated at the Fog and Cloud levels.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.2. To balance between data concurrency and throughput
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Uddin, 2020, Blockchain leveraged decentralized IoT ehealth framework, Internet of Things source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To address these challenges, the Patient Agent in Ref. [281] has been provided with the knowledge of determining rapid repositories for every data blocks based on their characteristics and privacy requirements.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, billing documents, healthcare provider's notes, medication summaries can be processed and stored in the blockchain ledger.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Federated learning [295] is a technique of machine learning that trains an algorithm across several decentralized nodes or servers that do not exchange their local data samples with any centralized server.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.5. Maintaining both transparency and privacy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [295] Xie, 2018, A survey of machine learning techniques applied to software defined networking (sdn): research issues and challenges, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In nature, the essence of the COVID-19 pandemic itself is distributed [293].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.5. Maintaining both transparency and privacy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [293] Chamola, 2020, A comprehensive review of the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of IoT, drones, AI, blockchain, and 5G in managing its impact, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the blockchain computing model, the implementation of homomorphic encryption technology has promising potential to secure user data and can allow mining to preserve user's privacy [282].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.5. Maintaining both transparency and privacy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [282] Shrestha, 2019, Integration of IoT with blockchain and homomorphic encryption: challenging issues and opportunities, Adv. Comput. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The four datasets have been fed into five different classifiers to study the feasibility of a machine learning algorithm in selecting an appropriate storage medium.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The dataset represents data storage requirements and user's preferences regarding the archive of their health data.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To cope with COVID-19 issues, distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain, can be highly advantageous but this technology cannot guarantee users' privacy.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.5. Maintaining both transparency and privacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The diverse data blocks with different features and health repositories with their performance measuring factors are fed to the upper portion of the model as input.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The performance was analyzed with respect to the accuracy, and root means square errors.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the abusive use of blockchain in shadowy trading sites has resulted in different scandals such as now-defunct Silk because currently, blockchain is largely unregulated [296].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [296] Peter, 2017, Regulatory issues in blockchain technology, J. Financ. Regul. Compl.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Several processes such as correlation coefficient analysis, heuristics rules, distance measurements and user preferences are applied to determine the repository for each data block.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The classifiers are trained using a variable size of the synthetic dataset in Weka ToolKits.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The study generated a synthetic dataset having a variable number of instances.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.4. Handling Big data on the blockchain
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] Uddin, 2020, Dynamically recommending repositories for health data: a machine learning model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The scheme was not implemented.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 5. Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [227] Nadeem, 2019, Securing cognitive radio vehicular ad hoc network with fog node based distributed blockchain cloud architecture, Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Pokrovskaia et al. [298] emphasized on having regulation mechanism for tax, finance and society within the knowledge-driven economy.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [298] Pokrovskaia, 2017, Tax, financial and social regulatory mechanisms within the knowledge-driven economy. Blockchain algorithms and fog computing for the efficient regulation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They highlighted the need of efficient regulation framework for blockchain and Fog computing.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [298] Pokrovskaia, 2017, Tax, financial and social regulatory mechanisms within the knowledge-driven economy. Blockchain algorithms and fog computing for the efficient regulation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Law can be made a product using a smart contract of the blockchain.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Lessig [284] described four means: law, social norms, and economic means for appropriately regulating any applications on the cyberspace.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [284] Lawrence, 1999, The law of the horse: what cyberlaw might teach, Harv. Law Rev. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the smart contract technology that turns the law into code on the blockchain can enact laws.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To deal with tracking and regulating blockchain, IoT application oriented smart Agent can be adopted to configure social norms and implement laws for the blockchain applications.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 26 (b) depicts that Bitcoin has a strong security architecture but other means of regulation have not been still developed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sustainability and adaptability of blockchain technology depend on effective regulation and monitoring.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Filippi et al. [297] presented the blockchain as a transformer from”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [297] Hassan, 2017, The expansion of algorithmic governance: from code is law to law is code, Field Actions Sci. Rep.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain oriented IoT applications can be effectively regulated by combining these four means.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: No legislation is still enacted for governing the existing blockchain applications.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conventional law cannot regulate blockchain because of blockchain's decentralized properties.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 26 (b) shows that an agent enabled blockchain IoT architecture can define four norms of regulating technology including social norms and laws that are absent in the current cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.6. To address regulation challenges of blockchain in IoT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, a variety of technological and security issues in IoT remain unaddressed.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
PoW prevents malicious, Sybil attacks and makes the blocks tamper-proof.
“On the contrary, PoW prevents malicious, Sybil attacks and makes the blocks tamper-proof.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The blockchain throughput is limited thanks to its complex cryptographic security protocol and consensus mechanisms.
“The blockchain throughput is limited thanks to its complex cryptographic security protocol and consensus mechanisms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The IoT has limited capabilities to connect them with blockchain technology in order to provide novel business opportunities for the implementation of new applications and services in various domains.
“The IoT has limited capabilities to connect them with blockchain technology in order to provide novel business opportunities for the implementation of new applications and services in various domains.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Blockchain can guarantee transparency of transactions, which is essential in some applications like finance.
“Blockchain can guarantee transparency of transactions, which is essential in some applications like finance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Due to the absence of governance, records cannot be filtered for maintaining privacy before publishing them on the blockchain.
“In addition, due to the absence of governance, records cannot be filtered for maintaining privacy before publishing them on the blockchain.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Actions resulting from executing code such as smart contracts on a DTL can breach law.
“Actions resulting from executing code such as smart contracts on a DTL can breach law.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Due to the anonymity of the DTL, it is not so straightforward to distinguish the parties carrying out transactions for illegal services.
“Due to the anonymity of the DTL, it is not so straightforward to distinguish the parties carrying out transactions for illegal services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Research has shown that by using disruptive technologies such as blockchain, these issues can be minimized.
“Research has shown that by using disruptive technologies such as blockchain, these issues can be minimized.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The high computational power required to run blockchain algorithms has slowed down the advancement of these technology-based applications on resource constrained devices.
“The high computational power required to run blockchain algorithms has slowed down the advancement of these technologybased applications on resource constrained devices.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Difficulties in regularly updating firmware for millions of smart devices from a point of security and maintenance perspective.
“difficulties in regularly updating firmware for millions of smart devices from a point of security and maintenance perspective.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The distributed ledger in blockchain is tamper-resistant and removes the need to trust participating parties.
“The distributed ledger in the blockchain is a tamper-resistant, which removes the need to trust the participating parties.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cloud computing has virtually unlimited storage and computational resources.
“Meanwhile, Cloud computing has virtually unlimited storage and computational resources that can deliver on-demand, reliable, and secure IoT services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Not all blockchain consensus mechanisms are suitable in a Fog ecosystem due to their limited resources.
“Further, Not all blockchain consensus mechanisms are suitable in a Fog ecosystem due to their limited resources.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Only a few countries, including Estonia and Peru, have already adopted blockchain health management in practice.
“However, only a few countries, including Estonia, Peru, have already adopted blockchain health management in practice.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Data interception can occur when IoT devices transfer data between them, questioning the reliability of the collected data.
“Further, the data interception can occur when IoT devices transfer data between them which questions the reliability of the collected data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
IoT devices have no accurate information available about the agents in a new environment.
“However, IoT devices have no accurate information available about the agents in a new environment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
IoT devices are often unknown and not referenced, and the traditional approach of asking other trusted agents for information is usually impracticable.
“Further, IoT devices are often unknown and not referenced, and the traditional approach of asking other trusted agents for information is usually impracticable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The IoT devices in a smart home are usually connected to global internet and consumers via Gateway services.
“The IoT devices in a smart home are usually connected to global internet and consumers via Gateway services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Patient monitoring systems continuously stream health data and transactions are more frequently created in such applications.
“Patient monitoring system continuously streams health data and transactions are more frequently created in such applications.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No legislation is still enacted for governing the existing blockchain applications.
“No legislation is still enacted for governing the existing blockchain applications.”
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?
In the citing paper
“However, centralized data-sharing systems have limitations, such as data privacy and security concerns [5]interoperability issues [6], and single points of failure [7].”
From Federated learning meets blockchain in decentralized data-sharing: Healthcare use case (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
“But, blockchain demands high cost to insert a block on-chain [183].”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.1.5. Blockchain leveraged storage for eHealth data
“The storage cost in the on-chain method is low because the size of the hash value is relatively small [184].”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 4.1. To balance between power consumption, performance, and security
“Zhang et al. [212] EEB SM ✓ ✓ OnC Ethereum”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 3.4.9. Blockchain for IoT payment management
“However, blockchain-based implementation has not been done and which kind of blockchain used was not highlighted.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
“Although blockchain can withstand major security attacks such as Sybil, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS), selfish mining and Ransomware attacks, the existing blockchain has some inherent security flaws.”
§ A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions > 2.4. Technical limitations of blockchain
“Still, blockchain technology is susceptible to a message hijack, and DDoS attacks and these attacks are the most common on blockchain networks [32].”
Citations
Cites
A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set
Tavallaee, M., Bagheri, E., Lu, W., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications · doi:10.1109/cisda.2009.5356528 · Cited by 5,396
(2013) · Cited by 5,372
IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges
Khan, M. A., & Salah, K. (2018) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.11.022 · Cited by 2,488
On blockchain and its integration with IoT. Challenges and opportunities
Reyna, A., Martín, C., Chen, J., Soler, E., & Díaz, M. (2018) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2018.05.046 · Cited by 1,908
Blockchain for IoT security and privacy: The case study of a smart home
Dorri, A., Kanhere, S. S., Jurdak, R., & Gauravaram, P. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops) · doi:10.1109/percomw.2017.7917634 · Cited by 1,843
A Survey on IoT Security: Application Areas, Security Threats, and Solution Architectures
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Saxena, V., Jain, D., Goyal, P., & Sikdar, B. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2924045 · Cited by 1,445
A review of internet of things for smart home: challenges and solutions
Risteska Stojkoska, B. L., & Trivodaliev, K. V. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.006 · Cited by 1,397
Blockchain for internet of things: a survey
Dai, H.-N., Zheng, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2019) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2920987 · Cited by 1,246
MeDShare: Trust-Less Medical Data Sharing Among Cloud Service Providers via Blockchain
Xia, Q., Sifah, E. B., Asamoah, K. O., Gao, J., Du, X., & Guizani, M. (2017) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2730843 · Cited by 1,148
Federated Learning for Mobile Keyboard Prediction
Hard, A., Rao, K., Mathews, R., Ramaswamy, S., Beaufays, F., Augenstein, S., Eichner, H., Kiddon, C., & Ramage, D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.03604 · Cited by 1,148
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Elia, 2015, The rabin cryptosystem revisited. Applicable Algebra in engineering, Communication and Computing, 26, 251
- Nasir, 2018, vol. 2018, 3976093
- Wood, 2014, 151, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Blockchain for the metaverse: A Review
Huynh‐The, T., Gadekallu, T. R., Wang, W., Yenduri, G., Ranaweera, P. S., Pham, Q., da Costa, D. B., & Liyanage, M. (2023) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2023.02.008 · Cited by 1,053
Tripathi, G., Ahad, M. A., & Casalino, G. (2023) · Decision Analytics Journal · doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100344 · Cited by 441
Blockchain in construction management: Applications, advantages and limitations
Mahmudnia, D., Arashpour, M., & Yang, R. J. (2022) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104379 · Cited by 213
Abdelmaboud, A., Ahmed, A. I. A., Abaker, M., Eisa, T. A. E., Albasheer, H., Ghorashi, S. A., & Karim, F. K. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11040630 · Cited by 197
Post-Quantum Blockchain Security for the Internet of Things: Survey and Research Directions
Gharavi, H., Granjal, J., & Monteiro, E. (2024) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2024.3355222 · Cited by 168
Metadata
- Authors
- Uddin, M. A., Stranieri, A., Gondal, I., & Balasubramanian, V.
- Affiliations
- Federation University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Uddin, Md Ashraf
- Venue
- Blockchain: Research and Applications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100006
- ISSN
- 2096-7209 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3133065136
- Semantic Scholar
- a1cdb81de39f32a8a0f51b33a84c13bbf0f18a4a
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 292
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 106 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 23
- FWCI
- 63.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Blockchain Research and Applications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Internet of Things and AI
- Keywords
- blockchain, Internet of Things, blockchain adoption, fog computing, cloud IoT, Internet of Things security, privacy, single point of failure, firmware updates, e-health, smart cities, decentralized systems
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
