A Review of Distributed Ledger Technologies

  • Nabil El IoiniEmail author
  • Claus Pahl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11230)


Recently the race toward trusted distributed systems has attracted a huge interest, mostly due to the advances in crypto-currencies platforms such as Bitcoin. Currently, different Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs) are competing to demonstrate their capabilities and show how they can overcome the limitations faced by others. The common denominator among all distributed ledger technologies is their reliance on a distributed, decentralized peer-to-peer network and a set of modular mechanisms such as cryptographic hashes and consensuses mechanisms. However, their implementations vary substantially in terms of the used data structure, fault tolerance and consensus approaches. This divergence affects the nature of each instance of the DLT in terms of cost, security, latency and performance. In this paper, we present a snapshot of four existing implementations of DLTs. The particularities of each technology and an initial comparison between them is discussed.


DLT Blockchain Tangle Hashgraph 


  1. 1.
    Hashgraph is new competitor for blockchain. Accessed 19 July 2018
  2. 2.
    Ali, M.S., Dolui, K., Antonelli, F.: IoT data privacy via blockchains and IPFS. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Internet of Things, p. 14. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonopoulos, A.M.: Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baird, L.: The swirlds hashgraph consensus algorithm: fair, fast, byzantine fault tolerance. Swirlds, Inc., Technical report SWIRLDS-TR-2016 1 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buchmann, J., Dahmen, E., Ereth, S., Hülsing, A., Rückert, M.: On the security of the Winternitz one-time signature scheme. In: Nitaj, A., Pointcheval, D. (eds.) AFRICACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6737, pp. 363–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cachin, C.: Architecture of the hyperledger blockchain fabric. In: Workshop on Distributed Cryptocurrencies and Consensus Ledgers (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El Ioini, N., Pahl, C.: Trustworthy orchestration of container based edge computing using permissioned blockchain. In: International Conference on Internet of Things: Systems, Management and Security (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill, T., Westbrook, R.: SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recall. Long Range Plann. 30(1), 46–52 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin, I.C., Liao, T.C.: A survey of blockchain security issues and challenges. IJ Netw. Secur. 19(5), 653–659 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pahl, C., El Ioini, N., Helmer, S.: A decision framework for blockchain platforms for IoT and edge computing. In: International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pahl, C., El Ioini, N., Helmer, S., Lee, B.: An architecture pattern for trusted orchestration in IoT edge clouds. In: 2018 Third International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), pp. 63–70. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Popov, S.: Iota: The tangle. (2016). Accessed 19 July 2018
  13. 13.
    Walport, M.: Distributed ledger technology: beyond blockchain. UK Government Office for Science (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu, X., et al.: A taxonomy of blockchain-based systems for architecture design. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA), pp. 243–252. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H.N., Wang, H.: Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a survey. Work Pap.-2016 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University of BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations