Abstract
Disputes over Cultural Heritage tokens and collections claims among collectors, organized social groups, countries, ethnicities, even civilizations, are but uncommon over time. Universal ontologies such as the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (ISO 21127:2014) have emerged as global standards over the past years, to allow for seamless structuring and interchange Cultural Heritage artifacts documentation information, in spite of their actual nature (physical, intangible, digital, etc.).
Yet, no objective universal procedure exists to safeguard the originality of the records and the archives; the immunity of essential sensitive data of the documentation tokens (dates, places, owners, etc.) is still questionable.
Aiming toward a coherent, effective Blockchain architecture to establish an immune, objective, collective archive of the documented Cultural Heritage tokens, the present proposes an implementation based on a comparative analysis of the prominent Blockchain architectures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The valued asset is the single documentation. All documents are considered of having the same value.
- 2.
Each document corresponds to a single Block. The voting power of each member is proportional to the number of Blocks it has proposed and have been successfully imported to the Hyperledger.
- 3.
Has failed to add a block to the chain, even if he was chosen to, in more than n% of the calls.
- 4.
It also safeguards the smooth operation of the chain, since the largest members are expected to present higher availability.
References
International council of museums, International committee for documentation official site, definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/. Accessed 12 May 2018
ISO standards official homepage - ISO 21127:2014 A reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. https://www.iso.org/standard/57832.html. Accessed 28 Aug 2018
Web archives homepage, Hal Finney Reusable Proofs of Work. https://web.archive.org/web/20071222072154/http://rpow.net/. Accessed 28 Mar 2010
Hackernoon tech BlogSpot, Decentralized Objective Consensus without Proof-of-Work, C.V. Alkan. https://hackernoon.com/decentralized-objective-consensus-without-proof-of-work-a983a0489f0a. Accessed 5 Feb 2017
Archaeology Data Service UK official site. http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/. Accessed 14 Aug 2018
Proof of stake vs Proof of work, Github Software Archive. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQs#what-is-proof-of-stake. Accessed 10 June 2018
Miller, A., LaViola Jr., J.J.: Anonymous Byzantine consensus from moderately-hard puzzles: a model for Bitcoin. Technical report, University of Central Florida, CS-TR-14-01, Florida (2014)
Proof of work vs proof of stake Turner Schumann, Hackernoon tech blogspot. https://hackernoon.com/consensus-mechanisms-explained-pow-vs-pos-89951c66ae10. Accessed 5 Apr 2018
Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 139–147. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48071-4_10
Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols (Extended abstract). In: Preneel, B. (ed.) Secure Information Networks. IFIP AICT, vol. 23, pp. 258–272. Springer, Boston, MA (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35568-9_18
Bitcoin official homepage, A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System white paper. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2018
Cai, J., Lipton, R., Sedgewick, R., Yao, A.: Towards uncheatable benchmarks. In: IEEE Structures, pp. 2–11 (1993)
Ethereum official blog, Vitalik Buterin p-epsilon attack. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/28/p-epsilon-attack/. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
Ethereum’s Casper protocol explained in simple terms. https://www.finder.com/ethereum-casper. Accessed 12 July 2018
University of Amsterdam on-line courses, Smart contracts definition (Nick Szabo 1994). http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html. Accessed 4 July 2018
The Ethereum official homepage. https://www.ethereum.org/. Buterin, Vitalik. “Ethereum Whitepaper”. Accessed 1 June 2017
IBM Research – Zurich official homepage, Christian Cachin “Architecture of the Hyperledger Blockchain Fabric”. https://www.zurich.ibm.com/dccl/papers/cachin_dccl.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2016
Vukolić, M.: The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: proof-of-work vs. BFT replication. In: Camenisch, J., Kesdoğan, D. (eds.) iNetSec 2015. LNCS, vol. 9591, pp. 112–125. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39028-4_9
Goldreich, O.: Foundations of Cryptography I: Basic Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001). ISBN 978-0-511-54689-1
Schneider, F.B.: Implementing fault-tolerant services using the state machine approach: a tutorial. ACM Comput. Surv. 22(4), 299–319 (1990)
Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4, 382–401 (1982)
Medium Blogspot Vlad Zamfir “Simple model of an internal PoW attacker”. https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/simple-model-of-an-internal-pow-attacker-1a713cf00672. Accessed 2 May 2017
Eyal, I., Sirer, E.G.: Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In: Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R. (eds.) FC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8437, pp. 436–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45472-5_28
Dwork, C., Lynch, N., Stockmeyer, L.: Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. J. ACM 35, 288–323 (1988)
Wood, G.: Ethereum: A Secure Decentralised Generalised Transaction Ledger Byzantium Version e94ebda - 2018-06-05. The Ethereum yellow paper homepage. https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2018
The Hyperledger Fabric platform official homepage. https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/fabric. Accessed 14 Aug 2018
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
G. Anagnostakis, A. (2019). Towards a Blockchain Architecture for Cultural Heritage Tokens. In: Moropoulou, A., Korres, M., Georgopoulos, A., Spyrakos, C., Mouzakis, C. (eds) Transdisciplinary Multispectral Modeling and Cooperation for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage. TMM_CH 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 961. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12957-6_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12957-6_38
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12956-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12957-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)