A Blockchain Address Generation Method Based on the Improved SM9 Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFor short hands, first write their full form. e.g Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). then in the entire paper, write ECDSA. Revise sentences in line no. 40 and 41.
What do you mean by country, et al. in line no. 47. The difference between the PKI system and the IBC system is not convincing enough to reject the strong and well proven PKI system.
The captions of Figures and labels of Tables do not write in this way. e.g "Figure 3. shows the process of generating the user's public and private keys and account address in 138 Ethernet." look for guidelines for writing Figure captions and Table lables.
Table 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 can be described in paragraph. No need to make table for the description. It is just the wastage of space in paper.
Key Generation Center (KGC) should be first write in this way as I mentioned before in line 149. In line 161 it can be write in short form and then after where ever it is used.
Related work should be separated and make a separate section for methodology adopted. It is currently discussed within the related work section that is confusing.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studies an improved SM9 algorithm-based method for generating blockchain addresses, and conducts experiments to compare the time required for blockchain address generation using the improved SM9 algorithm and the ECDSA algorithm, as well as the lengths of the generated user public and private keys and account addresses. The comments are as follows:
1. The paper introduces the development and application fields of blockchain technology in the introduction, but the review of existing research on blockchain address generation methods is not comprehensively enough. The authors should provide a more detailed review and analysis of the current research status of blockchain address generation methods at home and abroad, including the advantages and disadvantages, applicable scenarios, and existing problems of various methods, in order to better highlight the innovation and contribution of this study.
2. The paper mainly focuses on the improvement of the algorithm and theoretical analysis, with less discussion on the specific application scenarios and practical application value of the improved blockchain address generation method in practice. Elaborating on the potential applications of this method in fields such as finance, in line with the current trends and demands of blockchain technology applications, and analyze the challenges and solutions that may be encountered in actual applications.
3. There are some writing flaws in this paper, such as “data elements ×scientific…” in Line 30, Line 35 "The technology since Satoshi Nakamoto [4] first proposed in 2008, after more than ten years of development, its application field is vast." could be rephrased for clarity: "Since Satoshi Nakamoto first proposed the technology in 2008, it has developed over more than ten years and now has a vast application field." Line 87, “the F* qm ” should be Fqm , etc. These errors can be addressed through careful proofreading and editing to ensure the paper's language is clear, accurate, and professional.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some writing flaws in this paper, such as “data elements ×scientific…” in Line 30, Line 35 "The technology since Satoshi Nakamoto [4] first proposed in 2008, after more than ten years of development, its application field is vast." could be rephrased for clarity: "Since Satoshi Nakamoto first proposed the technology in 2008, it has developed over more than ten years and now has a vast application field." Line 87, “the F* qm ” should be Fqm , etc. These errors can be addressed through careful proofreading and editing to ensure the paper's language is clear, accurate, and professional.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- All the equations in the Related Work should be cited.
2- section 2.5. "The improved SM9 algorithm" was the original algorithm proposed by authors in this study or are the authors referring to the existing one? if the second case is correct, it should be cited; if the first case is correct, this section should be placed in the methodology section.
3- Authors should separate the related work from the methodology section for clarity, which, in this study, they don't have a methodology section.
4- The experiment's results in Table 7 should not only consider the comparison of improved SM9 with ECDSA. It should also compare it with the original SM9 and another recent blockchain algorithm in the same environment such as: BLS (Boneh-Lynn-Shacham), Schnorr Signatures, SNS (Schnorr with Nonce Secrecy), and DSA (Digital Signature Algorithm).
When comparing these algorithms with Modified SM9, consider aspects such as:
Performance: Signing and verification speed.
Security: Resistance to common cryptographic attacks.
Signature Size: Efficiency in the use of bandwidth and storage.
Scalability: Ability to handle large numbers of signatures, especially in blockchain applications.
Implementation Complexity: Ease of integration into existing systems.
This comprehensive comparison will help you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Modified SM9 relative to other advanced digital signature algorithms.
5- Authors should divide the discussion section from the conclusion. In the discussion, the authors should discuss the summary of Key Findings, Contextual Relevance, Performance Metrics, Security Considerations, Practical Implications, Limitations of the Study, and the broader impact of the findings on the field of cryptography and data security.
By addressing these parts in the discussion section, the paper will effectively convey the significance of the comparison, provide insights into the practical application of the findings, and contribute to the ongoing discourse in the relevant research community.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have thoroughly addressed all of my comments, and I can clearly see significant improvements in the quality and depth of the research.
