Decentralized Privacy-preserving Timed Execution in Blockchain-based Smart Contract Platforms
Open accessAbstract
In the age of Big Data, enabling task scheduling while protecting users' privacy is critical for various decentralized applications in blockchain-based smart contract platforms. Such a privacy-preserving task scheduler requires the task input data to be secretly maintained until a prescribed task execution time and be automatically recorded into the blockchain to enabling the execution of the task at the execution time, even if the user goes offline. While straight-forward centralized approaches provide a basic solution to the problem, unfortunately they are limited to a single point of trust and involve a single point of control. This paper presents decentralized techniques for supporting privacy-preserving task scheduling using smart contracts in Ethereum blockchain networks. We design a privacy-preserving task scheduling protocol that is managed by a manager smart contract. The protocol requires a user to schedule a task by deploying a proxy smart contract maintaining the non-sensitive information of the task while creating decentralized secret trust and selecting trustees from the network to maintain the sensitive information of the task. With security techniques including secret sharing and layered encryption as well as security deposit paid by trustees as economic deterrence, the protocol can protect the sensitive information against possible attacks including some trustees destroying the sensitive information (drop attack) or secretly releasing the sensitive information before the execution time (release-ahead attack). We demonstrate the attack-resilience of the proposed protocol through rigorous analysis.Our implementation and experimental evaluation on the Ethereum official test network demonstrate the low monetary cost and the low time overhead associated with the proposed approach.
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
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.
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?
Peer-to-peer communication preserves anonymity and privacy.
“and preserves anonymity and privacy (Li and Palanisamy, 2019; Ma et al., 2024).”
From WWW.Serve: Interconnecting Global LLM Services through Decentralization (2026) · cites this paper as Li and Palanisamy, 2019
The Protocol overview (p. 3) says user–trustee communications use encrypted private channels, and User schedule (p. 5) says selected trustees’ identities are known only to the user during scheduling. This supports privacy and limited identity protection in the paper’s protocol, but not the broader claim that peer-to-peer communication generally preserves anonymity and privacy; the paper also says trustees’ identities can later be revealed. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- [1][1] Marcin Andrychowicz et al. Secure multiparty computations on bitcoin. In Security and Privacy , pages 443-458. IEEE, 2014. -
- [3][3] Asaph Azaria et al. Medrec: Using blockchain for medical data access and permission management. In OBD , pages 25-30. IEEE, 2016. -
- [4][4] Guido Bertoni et al. The keccak sha-3 submission. Submission to NIST (Round 3) , 6(7):16, 2011. -
- [5][5] Nir Bitansky et al. Time-lock puzzles from randomized encodings. In ITCS , pages 345-356. ACM, 2016. -
- [6][6] Dan Boneh and Moni Naor. Timed commitments. In Advances in CryptologyCrypto 2000 , pages 236-254. Springer, 2000. -
- [9][9] Changyu Dong et al. Betrayal, distrust, and rationality: Smart counter-collusion contracts for verifiable cloud computing. ACM CCS , 2017. -
- [16][16] Sanjam Garg et al. Witness encryption and its applications. In STOC , pages 467-476. ACM, 2013. -
- [22][22] Kohei Kasamatsu et al. Time-specific encryption from forward-secure encryption. In SCN , pages 184-204. Springer, 2012. -
- [24][24] Chao Li and Balaji Palanisamy. Emerge: Self-emerging data release using cloud data storage. In Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2017 IEEE 10th International Conference on , pages 26-33. IEEE, 2017. -
- [25][25] Chao Li and Balaji Palanisamy. Timed-release of self-emerging data using distributed hash tables. In ICDCS , pages 2344-2351. IEEE, 2017. -
- [26][26] Chao Li and Balaji Palanisamy. Decentralized release of self-emerging data using smart contracts. In SRDS . IEEE, 2018. -
- [29][29] Patrick McCorry et al. A smart contract for boardroom voting with maximum voter privacy. In FC , pages 357-375. Springer, 2017. -
- [30][30] Andrew Miller and Iddo Bentov. Zero-collateral lotteries in bitcoin and ethereum. In EuroS&PW , pages 4-13. IEEE, 2017. -
- [33][33] Thanh Hong Nguyen et al. Analyzing the effectiveness of adversary modeling in security games. In AAAI , 2013. -
- [39][39] Adi Shamir. How to share a secret. Communications of the ACM , 22(11):612-613, 1979. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
WWW.Serve: Interconnecting Global LLM Services through Decentralization
Wang, H., Xia, Z., Chen, Z., & Chen, B. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20661
- Authors
- Li, C., & Palanisamy, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 265-274
- arXiv
- 1902.05613
- OpenAlex
- W2911616130
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing, Data, and Analytics (publishedVersion)
- D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
- Keywords
- smart contracts, decentralized applications, Ethereum, secret sharing, layered encryption, economic deterrence, trustees, gas cost, attack resilience
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