The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Proof-of-Trust Consensus Protocol for Enhancing Accountability in Crowdsourcing Services
Abstract
Incorporating accountability mechanisms in online services requires effective trust management and immutable, traceable source of truth for transaction evidence. The emergence of the blockchain technology brings in high hopes for fulfilling most of those requirements. However, a major challenge is to find a proper consensus protocol that is applicable to the crowdsourcing services in particular and online services in general. Building upon the idea of using blockchain as the underlying technology to enable tracing transactions for service contracts and dispute arbitration, this paper proposes a novel consensus protocol that is suitable for the crowdsourcing as well as the general online service industry. The new consensus protocol is called “Proof-of-Trust” (PoT) consensus; it selects transaction validators based on the service participants' trust values while leveraging RAFT leader election and Shamir's secret sharing algorithms. The PoT protocol avoids the low throughput and resource intensive pitfalls associated with Bitcoin' s “Proof-of-Work” (PoW) mining, while addressing the scalability issue associated with the traditional Paxos-based and Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT)-based algorithms. In addition, it addresses the unfaithful behaviors that cannot be dealt with in the traditional BFT algorithms. The paper demonstrates that our approach can provide a viable accountability solution for the online service industry.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Shamir, A. (1979) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/359168.359176 · Cited by 13,756
The Byzantine generals problem
Lamport, L., Shostak, R., & Pease, M. (1982) · ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · doi:10.1145/357172.357176 · Cited by 6,023
Cited by
A Comprehensive Review of Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms
Lashkari, B., & Musilek, P. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3065880 · Cited by 499
Blockchain applications for industry 4.0 and industrial IoT: a review
Alladi, T., Chamola, V., Parizi, R. M., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2956748 · Cited by 382
Bhushan, B., Khamparia, A., Sagayam, K. M., Sharma, S. K., Ahad, M. A., & Debnath, N. C. (2020) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102360 · Cited by 353
Haque, A. K. M. B., Bhushan, B., & Dhiman, G. (2022) · Expert Systems · doi:10.1111/exsy.12753 · Cited by 271
zkCrowd: a hybrid blockchain-based crowdsourcing platform
Zhu, S., Cai, Z., Hu, H., Li, Y., & Li, W. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2019.2941735 · Cited by 206
Metadata
- Authors
- Zou, J., Ye, B., Qu, L., Wang, Y., Orgun, M. A., & Li, L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Services Computing
- Published
- 2019-05-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 429-445
- ISSN
- 1939-1374 (ISSN-L)
- 2372-0204
- OpenAlex
- W2795991327
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 39.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Proof-of-Trust Consensus Protocol for Enhancing Accountability in Crowdsourcing Services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tsc.2018.2823705
- The paper
- Zou, J., Ye, B., Qu, L., Wang, Y., Orgun, M. A., & Li, L. (2019). A Proof-of-Trust Consensus Protocol for Enhancing Accountability in Crowdsourcing Services. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsc.2018.2823705
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.