Toward a Blockchain-Based, Reputation-Aware Secure Transactive Energy Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary:

To enhance the security in transactive energy management in energy market, this paper utilizes blockchain as a security solution. Besides, to detect and penalize malicious attacks, it introduces a reputation-aware algorithms to advance its blockchain-based transactive energy management method. 

Advantanges:

This work can provide an apparent explanation of the problem in transactive energy management and the solution for it. The proposal of reputation-aware transaction is lightweight and convincing. Formulation of the problem and its solution is quite good.

Disadvantages:

The formulation should be updated better. For example, ranges of values should be provided. Parameters in (5) and (6) should be in the same range or normalization functions should be added? 

One case this work has not mentioned is that sellers and buyers participate in the market for the first time. How does this proposal solve this situation?  

This paper mentions that it uses blockchain as a security solution and also uses it in the experiment, however, the operations of it have not been explained. For example, how the smart contract of chain Fabric works? how is a node (values in the formulation) verified and added to the chain?  

Figures seem not effective to show acceptable results. The normal case should not be in consideration. The experiment should focus on more anomaly cases with attacks. The number of attacks should be varied and the figures should show performance in such that situation. Are table 2, 3, 4, 5 really in need? They may be replaced by other useful displays. 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a new approach to ensure trust in marketplaces. Similar negotiation and matching technologies have been previously described, and the topic is relevant and timely.

The contribution seems to be correct and coherent with the state of the art. The paper includes several figures and, most importantly, algorithms and mathematical expressions that ensure the replicability. 

References are updated and the technological contribution is sound in general terms.

Experiments are good and are a first evidence of the functionalities and validation for the hypotheses. But, in my opinion, new experiments are needed. In particular, comparison to other similar solutions resported in the state of the art are required. The must be compared using some relevant indicators and statistical tests as ANOVA

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Peer-2-peer BC-based energy trading is well covered in the literature. The main contribution of this article is the reputation scheme. I don’t quite understand why the smart contract cannot lock the funds and release them to the other party when electricity is delivered or not delivered. So, why do we really need reputation scores? The authors also talk about some “shared wallets” but I don’t understand why additional wallets are necessary when SC can temporarily store the funds. Furthermore, what tokens should the parties use? Tokens that can be easily traded for money but also incur low network fees and benefit from good platform security? Ethereum, for example, is secure but has high fees.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have reflected on all my concerns and have no further comments.

The authors have reflected on all my concerns and have no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your review check.

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the author's have addressed all my previous concerns and the paper may be accepted. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review check.

Reviewer 3 Report

A multi-round double auction algorithm has been proposed before for energy trading. Just search "A multi round double auction energy trading" on google.

The shared wallet still makes no sense to me in this scenario. Shared wallets are usually used when multiple people must sign one transaction.

How exactly do you plan to integrate Fabric with Ethereum?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Progress has been made. I still have doubts about the shared wallets and their usefulness in detecting dishonest users before any transaction is executed. 

"In other words, when a dishonest user, who interrupts the bidding process by arbitrarily inflate/deflate the energy bidding price without delivery/payment, is successfully paired with an honest user, no transactions (even the transactions between two paired honest users) shall be executed in this iteration."

So if they don't pay, they are excluded. Why should this affect all the other honest transactions requiring all users to commit? Did it affect the settle prices of the other transactions? This should be explained.

"To achieve this goal, the shared wallet is required so that either all the paired users can commit the transactions together successfully or none of the paired users can commit." 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

I think sufficient progress has been made to warrant publication.