Cited by 1,078Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingInternet of Things and AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 157 of the 163 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 122 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A Review on the Use of Blockchain for the Internet of Things

Open access
Fernandez-Carames, Tiago M., Fraga-Lamas, Paula·2018·IEEE Access

Abstract

The paradigm of Internet of Things (IoT) is paving the way for a world, where many of our daily objects will be interconnected and will interact with their environment in order to collect information and automate certain tasks. Such a vision requires, among other things, seamless authentication, data privacy, security, robustness against attacks, easy deployment, and self-maintenance. Such features can be brought by blockchain, a technology born with a cryptocurrency called Bitcoin. In this paper, a thorough review on how to adapt blockchain to the specific needs of IoT in order to develop Blockchain-based IoT (BIoT) applications is presented. After describing the basics of blockchain, the most relevant BIoT applications are described with the objective of emphasizing how blockchain can impact traditional cloud-centered IoT applications. Then, the current challenges and possible optimizations are detailed regarding many aspects that affect the design, development, and deployment of a BIoT application. Finally, some recommendations are enumerated with the aim of guiding future BIoT researchers and developers on some of the issues that will have to be tackled before deploying the next generation of BIoT applications.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review examines how blockchain can be adapted to IoT, surveying BIoT applications, design optimizations, and current challenges. It concludes that BIoT is still nascent and that no one-size-fits-all solution exists, with further research needed on scalability, security, energy, interoperability, and governance.

Key findings

  • The paper surveys BIoT applications across healthcare, logistics, smart cities, energy, agriculture, wearables, transportation, and industrial processes, citing examples such as RFID+blockchain agri-food traceability, thing-to-thing electricity micro-payments, and pharmaceutical supply-chain temperature verification.
  • It identifies architecture, cryptography, timestamping, consensus, and maintenance/protocol stack as key optimization areas; it notes that ECC outperforms RSA on resource-constrained devices, that 2048-bit RSA is the minimum secure size, and that 768-bit and 1024-bit RSA implementations were broken in 2010.
  • It reports performance constraints: Bitcoin’s theoretical maximum is 7 transactions per second versus VisaNet’s up to 24,000; Bitcoin block creation follows a Poisson distribution with a 10-minute mean, and merchants may wait about an hour for confirmation.
  • It lists challenges including privacy/pseudonymity, security (including 51% attacks), energy efficiency of mining and P2P communications, throughput/latency, blockchain size/bandwidth, adoption, usability, multi-chain management, forks, mining boycotts, and smart contract enforcement; recommendations include interoperability/standardization, infrastructure, governance/legal frameworks, and rapid field testing.

Methods

  • Design: a review/holistic approach to blockchain for IoT, covering blockchain basics, BIoT applications, optimized design aspects, current challenges, and recommendations.
  • Data/sample: literature-based synthesis of prior research and practical examples; no primary experimental dataset or new empirical study is reported.
  • Analysis: qualitative synthesis with taxonomies, a flow diagram for deciding when to use blockchain in IoT, and comparisons of architectures and consensus algorithms.

Limitations

  • The paper states BIoT is still in its nascent stage and that broader use will require additional technological research advances plus collaboration of organizations and governments; it also states there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
  • The paper states further investigation is needed on scalability, security, cryptographic development, stability, interoperability/standardization, regulatory/legal aspects, and rapid field testing.
  • Evident from the text: as a review, it does not provide new experimental validation; performance figures and architecture examples are drawn from cited works, and at least one discussed architecture is theoretical and its resilience to compromised IoT nodes is not clear.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2018.2842685

Cites

157 of 157 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 122 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 40 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 113
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 84
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
154 of 154
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Currently, most IoT solutions rely on the centralized server-client paradigm, connecting to cloud servers through the Internet.

    “Currently, most IoT solutions rely on the centralized server-client paradigm, connecting to cloud servers through the Internet.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many IoT solutions are still expensive due to costs related to the deployment and maintenance of centralized clouds and server farms.

    “Many IoT solutions are still expensive due to costs related to the deployment and maintenance of centralized clouds and server farms.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Maintenance is a problem when having to distribute regular software updates to millions of smart devices.

    “Maintenance is also a problem when having to distribute regular software updates to millions of smart devices.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In an IoT system there are many entities (nodes, gateways, users) that do not necessarily trust each other when performing transactions.

    “IoT shares some common problems with cryptocurrencies, since in an IoT system there are many entities (nodes, gateways, users) that do not necessarily trust each other when performing transactions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are aspects that differentiate IoT from digital currencies, like the amount of computing power available in the nodes or the necessity for minimizing the energy consumed in devices powered with batteries.

    “However, there are several aspects that differentiate IoT from digital currencies, like the amount of computing power available in the nodes or the necessity for minimizing the energy consumed in devices powered with batteries.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In IoT, most communications go from nodes to gateways that route data to a remote server or cloud, and communications among peers at a node level are not very common.

    “In IoT most communications go from nodes to gateways that route data to a remote server or cloud. Communications among peers at a node level are actually not very common”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many users still trust blindly certain companies, government agencies or banks.

    “However, many users still trust blindly certain companies, government agencies or banks”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many IoT networks collect data that need to be timestamped and stored sequentially.

    “Many IoT networks collect data that need to be timestamped and stored sequentially.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Edge and fog computing can decrease network traffic and computational load of traditional cloud computing systems.

    “Thus, Edge and fog computing can be used to support physically distributed, low-latency and QoSaware applications that decrease the network traffic and the computational load of traditional cloud computing systems.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Blockchain technologies have not been devised explicitly for IoT environments.

    “since they have not been devised explicitly for IoT environments”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The access controller in a private blockchain is neutral.

    “Assuming the neutrality of the access controller, it is possible to reduce exposure by establishing an independent blockchain with every entity a user is collaborating with.”
11 of 11

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?

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.

  • Bitcoin's hash function is identified two different ways

    Minor

    The paper first identifies Bitcoin's hash function as SHA256d, then says Bitcoin uses SHA-256. It lists these as distinct hash functions.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 163 references

6 of the 163 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. 2018, ZeroC
  2. 2018, ZeroC
  3. 2018, ZCash
  4. 2018, Bytecoin’s
  5. 2018, Multichain White Paper
  6. mel, 2001, Cryptography Decrypted
  7. 2018, IOTA’s
  8. 2018, Ripple’s
  9. 2018, Hyperledger fabric
  10. 2018, Litecoin
  11. 2018, CryptoNote’s
  12. lukianov, 2015, Compact Confidential Transactions for Bitcoin
  13. frança, 2015, The mini-blockchain scheme
  14. 2018, Google Certificate transparency
  15. 2018, CONIKS
  16. 2018, Monero’s
  17. 2018, Ethereum
  18. 2018, Counterparty
  19. barro-torres, 2010, Maritime freight container management system using RFID, Proc 3rd Int EURASIP Workshop RFID Technol, 20
  20. meher, 2018, The Internet of Money
  21. 2018, POINT Project
  22. wilkinson, 2018, Storj A Peer-to-Peer Cloud Storage Network
  23. swanson, 2018, Consensus-as-a-service a brief report on the emergence of permissioned distributed ledger systems
  24. 2018, Tor Project
  25. 2018, Arm Trustzone
  26. 2018, Gridcoin’s
  27. 2018, Primecoin’s
  28. ball, 2018, Proofs of useful work
  29. 2018, BitTorrent
  30. 2018, International Standard IEC 61499
  31. 2018, Raspberry Pi
  32. 2018, Telehash
  33. 2018, BeagleBoards
  34. panikkar, 2015, ADEPT An IoT Practitioner Perspective, 1
  35. 2018, Burst-Coin
  36. 2018, Kubernetes
  37. 2018, ET Docker
  38. 2018, X11 Official Documentation for Dash
  39. aumasson, 2018, SHA-3 Proposal BLAKE
  40. bruce, 2018, The mini-blockchain scheme
  41. 2018, Original Scrypt Function for Tarsnap
  42. 2018, VISA Claims About the Number of Transactions Handled by VisaNet
  43. 2018, MyriadStore
  44. 2018, Peercoin
  45. 2018, DPOS Description on Bitshares
  46. 2018, Reddcoin
  47. larimer, 2018, Transactions as proof-of-stake
  48. copeland, 2018, Tangaroa A Byzantine Fault Tolerant Raft
  49. mazieres, 2018, The Stellar Consensus Protocol A Federated Model for Internet-level Consensus
  50. kwon, 0, Tendermint Consensus Without Mining (v0 6)
  51. 2017, Cisco Visual Networking Index Global Mobile Data Traffic Data Forecast Update Cisco White Paper
  52. 2013, Forecast The Internet of Things Worldwide 2013
  53. 2018, NIST
  54. 2015, Device Democracy Saving the Future of the Internet of Things
  55. 2018, Market for Blockchain Technology Worldwide
  56. 2018, Blockchain Technology Report to the U S Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance
  57. 2018, Crypto-Currency Market Capitalizations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Fernandez-Carames, T. M., & Fraga-Lamas, P.
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2018
Volume
6
Pages
32979-33001
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2805930283
Cited by
1,078
References
163
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 150 · 2021: 182 · 2020: 186 · 2019: 152 · 2018: 31
FWCI
222.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RUC (Universidade Da Coruña) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Xunta de Galicia (ED431C 2016-045, ED341D R2016/012, ED431G/01)
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación of Spain (TEC2015-69648-REDC, TEC2016-75067-C4-1-R)
  • ERDF funds of EU, UE (AEI/FEDER)
  • BBVA
  • BritishSpanish Society Grant
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, Internet of Things security, authentication, data privacy, attack robustness

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).

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