Next Article in Journal
Fuzzy Algorithmic Modeling of Economics and Innovation Process Dynamics Based on Preliminary Component Allocation by Singular Spectrum Analysis Method
Previous Article in Journal
Ant-Balanced Multiple Traveling Salesmen: ACO-BmTSP
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sybil in the Haystack: A Comprehensive Review of Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms in Search of Strong Sybil Attack Resistance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Algorithms
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/a16010038
Review Report
algorithms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Nero: A Deterministic Leaderless Consensus Algorithm for DAG-Based Cryptocurrencies

Algorithms 2023, 16(1), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/a16010038
by Rui Morais 1,*, Paul Crocker 1,2,* and Valderi Leithardt 3,4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Florin Popescu
Algorithms 2023, 16(1), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/a16010038
Submission received: 16 October 2022 / Revised: 19 December 2022 / Accepted: 4 January 2023 / Published: 7 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Blockchain Consensus Algorithms)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a leaderless deterministic consensus algorithm, and the the subject is topical.  However, to make this paper publishable, the authors need to respond to the following concerns:

(1)The Nero algorithm is unclear, and it would be helpful to incorporate a better explanation, preferably using a simple example or figure .

(2)The research contribution in this paper must be made clear, new algorithm or  improved algorithm followed by[23]?

(3)The literature reviews are not properly done in this paper. It's also important if the author can summarize the advantages, and disadvantages of each strategy in a table. 

(4)Complexity analysis from section 3 must be reviewed. The experiment is not comprehensive and thorough. For example, what is the detail configuration of the proposed comparative experiments? 

 

Author Response

We improved on the results with a benchmark of an open source implementation of the consensus algorithm and we described the new algorithm in a simpler way. The advantages and disadvantages of blockchain vs DAG and leaderless vs leader based algorithms are stated.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The abstract must be completely rewritten. It must refer to the research carried out and the results obtained. 2. The results do not highlight the scientific nature of the work. They MUST be detailed and explained for each stage in this study. Without detailing them, the work has no scientific value. 3. Conclusions are almost non-existent. The authors must detail with scientific evidence, the achievements, areas of application, and the ways to follow. The limitations and constraints of this study must also be pointed out.

Author Response

We improved on the results with a benchmark of an open source implementation of the consensus algorithm.

We added a section explaining the intuition behind the algorithm and its design choices.

The abstract and conclusions were rewritten.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved, according to the recommendations.

Back to TopTop