Formal Modeling and Verification of Smart Contracts with Spin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors raised the crucial topic of smart contract verification before their deployment in the production environment. The article is structured correctly and the content is presented in a logically consistent order. However, the manuscript as it stands is not precise enough. It requires both supplementation and clarification.

The introduction to the subject is too superficial. The "Introduction" section requires thorough improvement. The authors should also underline their contribution.

The literature has not been reviewed. There is no "Related work" section. In the "Introduction" section, the authors show the applications of blockchain technology (lines 21-22), but they are limited only to administration and access control. The authors should transfer these considerations to the "Related work" section and also comment on health care applications (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin.2021.09.005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.02 .058), logistics (https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6010015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2022.06.015) and renewable energy (https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICSENG.2018.8638165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.028).

There is a too limited number of papers on the modeling and verification of smart contracts. Authors should also comment on at least the following works: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106762, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12115339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2020.101129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.03.097, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3162227.

Those considerations should also be placed in the "Related work" section.

When authors cite other works, they should put it this way, "Lahbib et al. [13] adopt ..." instead of "[13] adopts ..." (line 37).

The proposed transaction description model looks interesting but is too imprecise. The entered designations must be unambiguous. The example on lines 114-120 does not use the notations derived from those specified on lines 73-86. Moreover, the marking on line 85 repeats the marking on line 76. The declarations must be definitely refined.

In the presented state models (Figures 7-10), queries are sometimes used also after events. Please check as it seems that the question mark after the conditions is correct same as the exclamation mark after the events. Please specify in the text.

The "Discussion and limitations" section is missing from this article. The authors should comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed modeling method in relation to the methods using the Unified Modeling Language (e.g. state machine and class diagrams) and the Domain Specific Languages. I also ask them to refer to the 1+5 architectural views model (https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13112000). It is important because the authors raise two important issues: blockchain technology and cooperating organizations in the execution of the business process.

Formal language should be used in the manuscript. Therefore, authors should avoid abbreviated forms such as doesn't (line 320). Authors should avoid open sentences with the use of etc. However, they regularly use it, eg. in lines: 179, 184, 191, 199, 205, 208, and 302. In line 143, the authors should verify whether they really mean "offline" or whether it should not be "online". In line 321, the authors should verify that they really mean 'The safety property guarantees' or shouldn't be 'The safety properties guarantee'. Because there are two of them: SAF, and TAS.

The "Conclusion" section requires an extension to include conclusions from the work and stylistic refinement. The sentence from lines 339-340 should be replaced with two separate sentences.

I encourage the authors to significantly expand the list of literature items. The number of 16 articles is far too modest for a scientific article.

The authors did a lot of work, but as it stands, I cannot recommend this article for publication in the Electronics journal.

Although the manuscript requires thorough refinement I urge the authors to do additional work. Please appreciate my constructive criticism and follow my recommendations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Research Paper needs Strong Revisions and is Subject for re-review, and after re-review the final decision on the manuscript will be done:

1. Improve the Abstract- Start with Background, then Problem Definition, then highlight the scope of the study. Then add what is the Aim/Objective of the paper and what novelty is there in the proposed technique. In the last lines, highlight in what %age and in what parameters the proposed methodology is better as compared to existing techniques and what is the overall analysis.

2. 6 Top Keywords to be added.

3. Add more information to the Introduction section in broad manner, and stress more on the Background, Problem Definition, scope and other technical highlights. Add Objectives of the paper at end of the Introduction. Add Organization of the paper.

4. Literature review is missing in the paper. It is suggested to add min 15-25 Papers to the paper. And every paper to be elaborated with what is proposed, what is the Novelty and what experimental results are there. In the last lines, highlight what overall technical gaps are observed in existing works, that led to the design of proposed methodology.

5. Add more information to the proposed approach with System Model, Architecture, Steps of working, Algorithm and Flowchart. Stress more on the elaborations with mathematical modeling.

6. Add some Experimental Results in more detailed work and even stress on the working.

7. Compare the proposed approach with existing techniques.

8. Add some Case study based discussion with elaborating the proposed approach with working solution.

9. Make the conclusion more systematic and even stress on novelty, experimental results and addition of future scope is suggested.

10. Add some latest references to the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I confirm that the authors have addressed many of my concerns. 

But, I would like to remind the authors that their manuscript deals with formal modeling and verification. 

The authors concentrate on the verification part of the topic.

Once again please augment the literature and comment on modeling smart contracts and smart contract patterns. Please also discuss the topic of architectural description in the context of the pointed-out model.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Revised paper has incorporated all the revisions as mentioned in the last review, and now the paper stands Accepted with no further revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript substantially.

I confirm that the authors have addressed virtually all of my concerns. Besides, the authors have augmented the manuscript with pointed topics. The authors' contribution has been additionally broadened.

Minor stylistic or punctuation errors should be corrected but they do not diminish the value of the manuscript. Besides, it can be done at the author's proofreading stage.

I recommend accepting the paper in its present form.