A Comparison of Two Blockchain Platforms: Bitcoin and Hyperledger Fabric
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
In this paper we review several works that compare blockchain platforms. For each one, we present the comparison criteria and its emphasis. Additionally, we compared two of the most popular blockchain platforms: Bitcoin and Hyperledger Fabric. With regard to the analyzed works, none of them emphasize on the similarities and differences regarding the flow of a transaction, a complex process in Hyperledger Fabric due to the number of concepts and components involved. To facilitate the comparison, we show the flow of a transaction in both platforms. The analyzed works also do not compare the functions of the components of each platform, for example, of the nodes and their different types, nor do they detail the structure of the blocks. Finally, an effort was made to establish a common vocabulary between the two platforms.
(1) Bruyn AS. Blockchain an introduction. Research paper. [consultado 15 ene 2021] 2017.
(2) Casado-Vara R, Corchado JM. Blockchain for democratic voting: how blockchain could cast of voter fraud. Oriental Journal of Computer Science and Technology. 2018;11(1):1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/ojcst11.01.01.
(3) Chang J, Katehakis MN, Melamed B, Shi JJ. Blockchain design for supply chain management. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2018. Disponible en: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3295440.
(4) Uzair MM, Karim E, Sultan P, Ahmed SS. The impact of blockchain technology on the real estate sector using smart contracts. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. MPRA Paper, 2018. Disponible en: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/88934.
(5) Teja AM, Alekhyam S, Jeevanbabu D. Online facility of flight ticket booking using blockchain. Journal of Engineering Research and Application. 2019;9(3):79-83. Disponible en: https://www.ijera.com/papers/vol9no3/Series-5/M0903057983.pdf.
(6) Bank for Interantional Settlements (BIS), Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures. CPMI Papers, Nro. 157. Distributed ledger technology in payment, clearing and settlement. Basel, Suiza: BIS; 2017.
(7) Haber S, Stornetta WS. How to timestamp a digital document. En: Menezes AJ, Vanstone SA, editors. Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO’ 90 CRYPTO 1990 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 537. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1991. p. 437–55. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-38424-3_32.
(8) Dinh TTA. Blockbench: A framework for analyzing private blockchains. En: SIGMOD ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data. Chicago; 2017. p. 1085–1100. https://doi.org/10.1145/3035918.3064033.
(9) Zahnentferner J. Chimeric ledgers: translating and unifying UTXO-based and account-based cryptocurrencies. Cryptology ePrint Archive. Report 2018/262. 2018. Disponible en: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/262.pdf.
(10) Salimitari M, Chatterjee M. A survey on consensus protocols in blockchain for IoT networks. Networking and Internet Architecture. 2019;arXiv:1809.05613. 2018. Disponible en: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05613.
(11) Valenta M, Sandner P. Comparison of Ethereum, Hyperledger Fabric and Corda. Frankfurt School, Blockchain Center. Informe Técnico. 2017. Disponible en: http://explore-ip.com/2017_Comparison-of-Ethereum-Hyperledger-Corda.pdf.
(12) Macdonald M, Liu-Thorrold L, Julien R. The blockchain: a comparison of platforms and their uses beyond bitcoin. COMS4507-Advanced Computer and Network Security. University of Queensland; 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23274.52164.
(13) Maharjan PS. Performance analysis of blockchain platforms. [Tesis de maestría]. Las Vegas: University of Nevada; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/14139888.
(14) Nasir Q, Qasse IA, Talib MA, Nassif AB. Performance analysis of Hyperledger Fabric platforms. Security and Communication Networks.2018:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3976093.
(15) Veskus K. Ethereum versus Fabric–A comparative analysis [Tesis de pregrado]. Tartu: University of Tartu; 2018. Disponible en: https://comserv.cs.ut.ee/ati_thesis/datasheet.php?id=61989&year=2018.
(16) Voulgaris S, Fotiou N, Siris VA, Polyzos GC, Jaatinen M, Oikonomidis Y. Blockchain technology for intelligent environments. Future Internet. 2019;11(10):213. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi11100213.
(17) Shreves R. Block by block a comparative analysis of the leading distributed ledgers [Internet]. Mercy Corps. 2018 [consultado 10 oct 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.mercycorps.org/research-resources/block-block.
(18) Scherer M. Performance and scalability of blockchain networks and smart contracts [Tesis de doctorado]. Umeå: Umeå University, 2017. Disponible en: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Aumu%3Adiva-136470.
(19) Navarro BY. Blockchain y sus aplicaciones. Universidad Católica Nuestra Señora de La Asunción. Working paper. 2017. Disponible en: http://jeuazarru.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Blockchain.pdf.
(20) Gueron S, Johnson S, Walker J. SHA-512/256. En: 8th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. Las Vegas; 2011. p.354-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ITNG.2011.69.
(21) Blockchain Institute of Technology. What is the Bitcoin transaction pool? [Video de internet]. Youtube. 9 ene 2018 [citado 9 nov 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Vaefx69_Q.
(22) Red Hat. ¿Qué es Docker? [Internet]. Red Hat. 5 abril 2019 [consultado 10 oct 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.redhat.com/es/topics/containers/what-is-docker
(23) Hyperledger. Hyperledger a blockchain platform for the enterprise [Internet]. Hyperledger. 29 sep 2019 [consultado 3 ene 2021]. Disponible en: https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-1.4.
(24) Tam K. Demo of three-node two-channel setup in Hyperledger Fabric [Internet]. KC Tam. 7 abr 2019 [consultado 8 ene 2021]. Disponible en: https://kctheservant.medium.com/demo-of-three-node-two-channel-setup-in-hyperledger-fabric-54ba8a9c461f.
(25) Brandenburger M, Cachin C, Kapitza R. Blockchain and trusted computing: problems, pitfalls, and a solution for Hyperledger Fabric. 2018;arXiv:1805.08541. 2018. Disponible en: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.08541.
(26) Androulaki E, Barger A, Bortnikov V, Cachin C, Christidis K, et al. Hyperledger Fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. En: EuroSys '18: Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference. Nueva York; 2018. p. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3190508.3190538.
(27) Nguyen TSL, Jourjon G, Potop-Butucaru M, Thai K. Impact of network delays on Hyperledger Fabric. 2019;arXiv:1903.08856. 2019. Disponible en: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.08856.
(28) Buchko S. How long do Bitcoin transactions take? [Internet] Coincentral. 12 dic 2017 [consultado 8 ago 2020]. Disponible en: https://coincentral.com/how-long-do-bitcoin-transfers-take.
(29) BTC. Block Size [Internet]. BTC.com. 11 may 2016 [consultado 17 sep 2020]. Disponible en: https://btc.com/stats/block-size.
(30) Moos M. Bitcoin transactions per block at all-time highs [Internet]. Cryptoslate. 8 abr 2019 [consultado 3 ene 2021]. Disponible en: https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-transactions-per-block-at-all-time-highs.
(31) Gauba A. Finality in blockchain consensus [Internet]. Medium. 30 Ago 2018 [consultado 15 ene 2021]. Disponible en: https://medium.com/mechanism-labs/finality-in-blockchain-consensus-d1f83c120a9a.
Accepted 2021-06-13
Published 2022-01-15
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors grant the journal and Universidad del Valle the economic rights over accepted manuscripts, but may make any reuse they deem appropriate for professional, educational, academic or scientific reasons, in accordance with the terms of the license granted by the journal to all its articles.
Articles will be published under the Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA licence (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike).