Blockchain Technologies for IoT

  • V. DedeogluEmail author
  • R. Jurdak
  • A. Dorri
  • R. C. Lunardi
  • R. A. Michelin
  • A. F. Zorzo
  • S. S. Kanhere
Part of the Studies in Big Data book series (SBD, volume 60)


The exponential increase in connected devices with built-in sensing, processing, and communication capabilities has fuelled the development of IoT applications, which creates new ecosystems for device-to-device interactions, supports smart environments, and leads to new business models. Empowered by these capabilities, IoT devices interact with each other and their environments to collect, process, and share data. Security, privacy, and reliability of data are major concerns that need to be addressed for the development of IoT applications. Recently, blockchain technology has attracted significant interest from researchers and industry leaders due to its potential for enhancing security, privacy, and reliability of the data. Blockchain offers distributed and immutable ledgers for IoT communications in the form of tamper-proof records, built-in cryptocurrency support for transactions between devices and other entities, and smart contracts to execute automated programs when certain conditions are met. Although there are potential benefits of the integration of blockchain technology to IoT, the integration introduces new challenges, such as scalability, in the design of blockchains suited for IoT applications. In this chapter, we explore key benefits and design challenges for blockchain technologies, and potential applications of blockchain technologies for IoT.


Blockchain IoT Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) Distributed consensus 


  1. 1.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buterin, V.: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. White Paper (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Szabo, N.: Smart contracts. In: Virtual School (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cachin, C.: Architecture of the hyperledger blockchain fabric. In: Workshop on Distributed Cryptocurrencies and Consensus Ledgers, vol. 310 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Popov, S.: The Tangle (2016). Available:
  6. 6.
    Sicari, S., Rizzardi, A., Grieco, L.A., Coen-Porisini, A.: Security, privacy and trust in internet of things: the road ahead. Comput. Netw. 76, 146–164 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, Z.-K., Cho, M.C.Y., Wang, C.-W., Hsu, C.-W., Chen, C.-K, Shieh, S.: Iot security: ongoing challenges and research opportunities. In: 2014 IEEE 7th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications, pp. 230–234. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakravorty, A., lodarczyk, T., Rong, C.: Privacy preserving data analytics for smart homes. In: Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), 2013 IEEE, pp. 23–27. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Popov, S., et al.: Equilibria in the Tangle (2018). arXiv:1712.05385
  10. 10.
    King, S., Nadal, S.: PPCoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dziembowski, S., et al.: Proofs of space. In: Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO 2015, pp. 585–605 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castro, M., Liskov, B.: Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI’99), pp. 173–186. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crain, T., et al.: DBFT: efficient byzantine consensus with a weak coordinator and its application to consortium blockchains (2018). arXiv:1702.03068
  14. 14.
    Mazières, D.: The Stellar Consensus Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-level Consensus (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baliga, A., et al.: Performance Evaluation of the Quorum Blockchain Platform (2018). arXiv:1702.03068, arXiv:1809.03421
  16. 16.
    Ongaro, D., Ousterhout, J.: In search of an understandable consensus algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2014 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC’14, pp. 305–320, Berkeley, CA, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu X., et al.: M2m blockchain: the case of demand side management of smart grid. In: 2017 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), pp. 810–813, December 2017Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorri, A., et al.: Towards an optimized blockchain for IoT. In: Second International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation, IoTDI’17, pp. 173–178. New York, NY, USA: ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lunardi, R.C., et al.: Distributed access control on iot ledger-based architecture. In: NOMS 2018–2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, pp. 1–7, April 2018Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharma, et al. Distblocknet: a distributed blockchains-based secure SDN architecture for IoT networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 55(9), pp. 78–85 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boudguiga, A., et al.: Towards better availability and accountability for IoT updates by means of a blockchain. In: 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS PW), pp. 50–58, April 2017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nelson, P., Nelson, P.: One autonomous car will use 4,000 GB of data per day. Retrieved form, 7 December 2016
  23. 23.
    Dorri, A., et al.: Blockchain: a distributed solution to automotive security and privacy. IEEE Commun. Mag. 55(12) (2017), 119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Michelin, R.A., et al.: SpeedyChain: A framework for decoupling data from blockchain for smart cities. In: 15th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services (MobiQuitous ’18), pp. 145–154. ACM, New York, NY, USA, (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dorri, A., Luo, F., Kanhere, S.S., Jurdak, R., Dong, Z.Y.: SPB: A Secure Private Blockchain-based Solution for Distributed Energy Trading, Accepted at IEEE Communications Magazine, February, 2019 (in press). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Power Ledger: Energy, reimagined.
  27. 27.
    del Castillo, M.: Walmart, Kroger & Nestle team with ibm blockchain to fight food poisoning (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blockverify: Blockchain based anti-counterfeit solution. Retrieved from 22 June 2019 (n.d.)
  29. 29.
    Project Provenance Ltd, 71 Fanshaw St, London, N1 6LA, UK. Every product has a story. Retrieved from 22 June 2019 (2019)
  30. 30.
    Feng, T.: An agri-food supply chain traceability system for china based on rfid & blockchain technology. In: 2016 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM) on IEEE, pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feng, T.: A supply chain traceability system for food safety based on haccp, blockchain internet of things. In: 2017 International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, pp. 1–6, June 2017Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biswas, K., Muthukkumarasamy, V., Tan, W.L.: Blockchain based wine supply chain traceability system. In: Future Technologies Conference (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Toyoda, K., Mathiopoulos, P.T., Sasase, I., Ohtsuki, T.: A novel blockchain-based product ownership management system (poms) for anti-counterfeits in the post supply chain. IEEE Access 5, 17465–17477 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abeyratne, S.A., Monfared, R.P.: Blockchain ready manufacturingsupply chain using distributed ledger. Int. J. Res. Eng. Tech. 05(09), 1–10 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Malik, S., Kanhere, S., Jurdak, R.: Productchain: scalable blockchain framework to support provenance in supply chains. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA), Cambridge, USA, November (2018)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oham, C., et al.: B-FICA: Blockchain based framework for auto-insurance claim and adjudication (2018). arXiv:1806.06169
  37. 37.
    Conti, M., Sandeep Kumar, E., Lal, C., Ruj, S.: A survey on security and privacy issues of bitcoin. In: IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 3416–3452, Fourth Quarter (2018)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gervais, G.O., et al.: On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Series CCS’16, pp. 3–16 (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Majority is not enough: bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Commun. ACM 61(7), 95–102 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yalçin, T.: Compact ECDSA engine for IoT applications. Electron. Lett. 52(15), 1310–1312 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Biryukov, A., et al.: Deanonymisation of clients in bitcoin p2p network. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Series CCS’14, pp. 15–29 (2014)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Johnson, B., et al.: Game-theoretic analysis of ddos attacks against bitcoin mining pools. In: Böhme, R., Brenner, M., Moore, T., Smith, M. (eds.) Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pp. 72–86. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ray, S., et al.: Patching the internet of things. In: IEEE Spectrum, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 30–35, November 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Douceur, J.R.: The sybil attack. In: Revised Papers from the First International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, Series IPTPS’01, pp. 251–260 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heilman, E., et al.: Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In: 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), pp. 129–144, Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dorri, A., Kanhere, S.S., Jurdak, R., Gauravaram, P.: LSB: a lightweight scalable blockchain for IoT security and privacy. J. Paral. Distrib. Comput. (forthcoming). arXiv:1712.02969
  47. 47.
    Dorri, A., Kanhere, S.S., Jurdak, R.: MOF-BC: a memory optimized and flexible blockchain for large scale networks. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 92, 357–373 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ateniese, G., Magri, B., Venturi, D., Andrade, E.: Redactable blockchain – or – rewriting history in bitcoin and friends. In: 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), pp. 111–126, Paris (2017)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yan, Z., Zhang, P., Vasilakos, A.V.: A survey on trust management for Internet of Things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 42, 120–134 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lu, Z., Liu, W., Wang, Q., Qu, G., Liu, Z.: A privacy-preserving trust model based on blockchain for VANETs. In: IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 45655–45664 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kang, J., Yu, R., Huang, X., Wu, M., Maharjan, S., Xie, S., Zhang, Y.: Blockchain for secure and efficient data sharing in vehicular edge computing and networks. IEEE Internet Things J. (2018)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Malik, S., Dedeoglu, V., Kanhere, S., Jurdak, R.: TrustChain: Trust Management in Blockchain and IoT supported Supply Chains. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain-2019), Atlanta, USA, July (2019)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mo, B., Su, K., Wei, S., Liu, C., Guo, J.: A solution for Internet of Things based on blockchain technology. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), pp. 112–117, Singapore (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Dedeoglu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • R. Jurdak
    • 1
    • 5
  • A. Dorri
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. C. Lunardi
    • 3
    • 4
  • R. A. Michelin
    • 6
  • A. F. Zorzo
    • 3
  • S. S. Kanhere
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIRO Data61BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of TechnologyPontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  4. 4.Campus RestingaFederal Institute of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  5. 5.School of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceQUTBrisbaneAustralia
  6. 6.Cyber Security Cooperative Research CentreJoondalupAustralia

Personalised recommendations