Credible Peer-to-Peer Trading with Double-Layer Energy Blockchain Network in Distributed Electricity Markets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction and the current stage in P2P research are very laborious, it can be seen from a large number of references.

It would have been good to present in this part a structure in the form of a figure, which means prosumer and P2P single layer.

We find a good analogy made between the analytical method and the new structure proposed in the paper.

The conclusions and results are supported by many experimental data.

 

Author Response

Please accept our gratitude for your valuable comments on our paper. And please refer to the attachment for detailed modification information.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a double-layer energy blockchain network for distributed electricity markets to address data privacy concerns and ensure to provide effective supervision. The proposed blockchain structure is based on cross-chain interoperability technology and the credit-threshold notary scheme. The blockchain digital signature separates P2P trading data from the information to be made public. Overall, the paper is written well and sounds technically and scientifically. However, there are some aspects that need to be improved.

1- There are several similar works in current literature, proposing blockchain-based two-way auction approaches for electricity trading. Further evaluation results and relevant discussion are required to position the proposed approach against similar works in the current literature. 2- For the Introduction section, the authors need to provide further clarification on the novelty of the work, motivation, and importance of the work as well as challenges. 

3- The paper explains using various techniques/algorithms such as the ring mapping identity authenticate and credit-threshold notary scheme. The paper must explain and justify why these are the choices comparing to any other alternative techniques. 4- Description of both figures 1 and 2 are insufficient. These figures are not very helpful to illustrate the details of the approach. Authors can consider using pseudocode to provide further details of the presented algorithms.  5- The interpretation of results needs to be improved. 6- The authors need to clearly discuss the simulation settings/parameters and explain how they can prove the validation of simulation results.  

 

Author Response

Please accept our gratitude for your valuable comments on our paper. And please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications and replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a new block chain for the energy sector. The structure is clear and well interconnected among the different parts. The aims are omitted. The literature review is very well done from all the points of view.  It is useful to improve the discussion starting from the new literature review. I would just suggest the research https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/949/1/012113 for having a complete vision On this topic in the European project. The images must be more comunicative. Conclusions must be revised to insert the novelty and the scientific value of this paper for the scientific community.

Author Response

Please accept our gratitude for your valuable comments on our paper. And please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications and replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments from the previous review. The technical content of the paper and quality of presentation have been significantly improved. I am happy to recommend accepting the paper in present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for considering my suggestions