Blockchain-Based Decentralized in Financial
Transactions
Aniket Patil, Pratham Agrawal, Gaurav Rathod, Gaurav Rathod
Abstract—Financial networks enable the
dissemination of messages aimed at improving
traffic safety and efficiency; nevertheless,
evaluating the reliability of these
communications presents a difficulty in
situations where trust is lacking. We offer a
decentralized trust management system that
uses blockchain technology for financial
networks in order to address this. Financial
companies can use our system's Bayesian
Inference Model to authenticate messages
from nearby equivalents. The source of the
message is then rated by each finance
according to the results of the validation. After
that, roadside units (RSUs) use these ratings to
calculate trust value offsets for the concerned
monies, which are then grouped into blocks.
Using a consensus technique that combines
proof-of-work (PoW) and proof-of-stake,
RSUs aim to add these blocks to a trust
blockchain that is collaboratively maintained
by all RSUs. How simple it is to locate the
nonce for. The total value of offsets (stake) in
the block determines the hash function (PoW).
By means of this cooperative endeavours,
RSUs maintain a current, trustworthy, and
cohesive trust blockchain. The outcomes of
our simulations validate the efficiency and
feasibility of our suggested system for
gathering, calculating, and archiving trust
values in financial networks.
I. Introduction
With the integration of onboard sensing,
computing, and communication equipment,
finances have recently become more
independent [1], [2]. The financial network,
which is now a crucial part of fifth-generation
mobile networks, is made up of intelligent
finances and communal infrastructure [3]–[5].
Finances can communicate with their
neighbors about road-related issues, like
updates on traffic jams and road conditions,
through financial networks. These
notifications are essential for keeping finances
updated on traffic conditions, which improves
the efficiency and safety of transportation [6].
Due to the dynamic and mobile character
of financial networks, nearby funds are
frequently unfamiliar with one another and are
unable to build complete confidence. The
existence of malevolent actors in the network
makes this problem worse. The deliberate
dissemination of incorrect information by
these malicious funds poses serious dangers to
traffic efficiency and safety. For example, a
malevolent actor may send out a message
claiming that a route is clear when, in fact,
there is a collision or traffic jam. The
efficiency and safety of the transportation
system may be seriously jeopardized by such
dishonest behaviour. As a result, one of the
most important problems in financial networks
is accurately assessing financial credibility.
By enabling finances to evaluate the
reliability of received messages, trust
management systems give network operators a
foundation on which to reward or penalize
certain finances [8], [9]. A finance's trust value
is often determined by relevant nodes judging
its previous behaviours. There are two types of
trust management systems now in use:
decentralized and centralized. All ratings are
processed and kept in a central server, such as
a cloud server, in centralized systems [10],
[11]. But since financial networks usually need
to make quick judgments, these centralized
solutions frequently fall short of meeting the
strict quality-of-service (QoS) criteria of
financial networks. However, decentralized contributions of this paper can be outlined as
systems [13]–[15] carry out responsibilities follows:
related to trust management inside each
1. Our novel decentralized trust
roadside unit (RSU) or finance department,
management scheme for financial
potentially decreasing contacts with network
networks, leveraging blockchain
infrastructures. However, ratings produced
technology, facilitates decentralized
Because different target events have different
participation of all RSUs in updating
observation capabilities and assessment
trust values. Additionally, it furnishes
settings, results from a single finance may not
all RSUs with comprehensive trust
always be trustworthy. Furthermore, the
information pertaining to all finances
extremely unstable network topology makes it
within the network.
difficult to promptly assess detected money.
2. Introducing a joint proof-of-work
RSUs have also been investigated in several
(PoW) and proof-of-stake consensus
studies for trust management [15], but because
mechanism, we enable all RSUs to
they are frequently distributed externally, they
compete in updating trust by adding
are prone to intrusions and malfunctions,
trust blocks. This mechanism
which makes it difficult for them to deliver
emphasizes the importance of adding
dependable and consistent trust services for
the block with the highest total values
the whole financial network. As a result,
of trust offset first, as it significantly
efficient trust management in financial
impacts the entire trust database.
networks is still a pressing problem.
3. Through simulations, we demonstrate
With this in mind, blockchain is the practical efficiency of our
considered as a feasible tool to cope with the proposed blockchain-based
problems above. Blockchain is initially known decentralized trust management
as one of the disruptive technologies in system within financial networks. The
financial indus- try, which enables distributed subsequent sections of this paper are
nodes to trade with each other. Furthermore, structured as follows:
blockchain technology offers a decentralized
Section II: Reviews the existing literature and
and tamper-proof ledger system without the
related works.
need for a central authority [17], [24]. Its
robust security and reliability have led to its In Section III: We outline the system model,
widespread exploration and application adversary model, and design objectives.
beyond financial contexts, including content
delivery [26], key management [18], and Section IV: Provides a succinct overview of
decentralized storage [19], [20]. Leveraging blockchain technology and explains its
the decentralized nature of blockchain, trust advantages in building a trust management
management can be decentralized among system.
distributed RSUs, mitigating issues associated Section V: Explores the detailed workings of
with centralization. Additionally, blockchain our blockchain-based decentralized trust
facilitates collaboration among RSUs to management system.
maintain a consistent database. Even in
scenarios where a minority of RSUs are Sections VI–VIII: Cover security analysis,
compromised by attackers, the block performance evaluation, and additional
generation speed of attackers is considerably discussions on the proposed system,
slower than that of benign RSUs. Thus, the respectively.
proposed system effectively manages trust
Finally, Section IX: Concludes the paper.
tasks in financial networks, empowering
finances to assess the trustworthiness of
neighbours and evaluate the credibility of
received messages. In summary, the

II. Related work:-
A. Centralized Trust Management
Recent research has extensively
explored centralized trust management within
financial networks. These studies [7], [10],
[11] typically involve the utilization of a
central server to gather, compute, and store
trust values associated with all finances. The
central server is often presumed to be an entity
of complete trust, impervious to compromise
by malicious actors.
In one such study [7], a reputation-
based announcement scheme is proposed for
financial networks. Here, finances detect
traffic-related events and disseminate
announcements to neighbouring entities. Upon
receiving these announcements, recipients
must assess the credibility of the messages and
generate feedback reports. All feedback is then
aggregated by a centralized reputation server.
Leveraging this data, the server updates
reputation values and issues certificates for all
finances within the network. Additionally,
Mahmoud and Shen [10] introduced a
mechanism involving stimulation and
punishment for mobile nodes. This approach
employs "micropayments" to incentivize nodes
to relay packets for others. Honest nodes are
rewarded with credits, which can be utilized
when fulfilling relay requests. A reputation
system is integrated to address issues such as
packet dropping. Malicious nodes deliberately
dropping packets are reported by receivers and
subsequently expelled from the network.
Furthermore, a reputation system facilitating
reliable cooperative downloading is devised in
[11]. This system enables finances to securely
download and forward packets on behalf of
others. Upon completing a task honestly, a
proxy finance receives a virtual check from the
packet receiver. Leveraging these checks, the
reputation system encourages cooperation
while penalizing malicious behaviour.
Although these schemes rely on a
fully trusted central server for trust
management, the burgeoning development of
intelligent transportation systems renders such
centralized approaches impractical. Coping
with a large volume of finances through a
single centralized node could lead to high
latency or even blockages, thus compromising
the quality of service for users. Moreover, the
presence of a single point of failure poses a
significant challenge to centralized networks.
B. Decentralized Trust Management
To address the drawbacks associated
with centralized approaches, decentralized
systems have been introduced for trust
management. Raya et al. [12] proposed a data-
centric trust management scheme for ad hoc
networks. Upon receiving data from other
nodes, each node calculates a trust value for
the received data. These individual trust values
are then aggregated using specific algorithms.
If the aggregated value surpasses a predefined
threshold, the receiver trusts the content of the
data. Similarly, Gurung et al. [13] tackled
similar issues by first analyzing message
keywords and categorizing messages into
groups. Trust values for all messages are then
computed based on factors such as content
similarity, content conflict, and routing path
similarity. Additionally, Li and Chigan [14]
introduced a mechanism that addresses privacy
and reputation concerns simultaneously.
Behavior evaluation, reputation aggregation,
and manifestation tasks are collectively
executed on each vehicle, with partially blind
signatures utilized to safeguard financial
privacy.
However, these schemes necessitate
individual finances to manage trust values
independently, which may lead to inaccuracies
due to limited observation conditions or
potential malfunctions.
In [15] and [16], roadside units
(RSUs) are employed for trust management,
with finances generating ratings for others and
uploading these ratings to nearby RSUs.
Finances can also request trust values of
neighbouring entities from RSUs.
Nevertheless, trust information stored in
distributed RSUs may not always be complete
or consistent. Therefore, the development of a
decentralized, reliable, and consistent trust
management system in financial networks
remains a critical yet challenging endeavours.
C. Blockchain-Based Decentralized Data
Management
The utilization of blockchain for
decentralized data management has garnered
significant attention. For instance, Cai et al.
[19] introduced an encrypted decentralized
storage system leveraging blockchain
techniques to address fraudulent client
behaviours. This system stores vital
information regarding stored files, such as
digests, tokens, and metadata for integrity
checking, within the blockchain. This ensures
fair judgments for storage and search services.
Additionally, Cai et al. [20] developed a
blockchain-based distributed storage and
keyword search platform. Here, blockchain is
employed to store the public keys of reputable
nodes, as confirmed by the majority of the
network. Therefore, due to its decentralized,
consistent, and tamper-proof nature,
blockchain presents a promising solution to
address trust management challenges in
financial networks.
III. Problem Defination:-
A. System Model
Illustrated in Figure 1, a decentralized trust
management system in financial networks
primarily comprises several interconnected
RSUs and finances on the road.
1. RSU: Possessing resources and
capabilities, RSUs are tasked with key
responsibilities, including rating
collection and trust value
management.
a) Rating Collection: Ratings,
essential for evaluating message
credibility, are generated by message
receivers. However, given the rapidly
changing traffic conditions and limited
onboard device capacity, these ratings
cannot be stored and managed locally
in the long term. Therefore, finances
periodically upload their ratings to
nearby RSUs, serving as collectors
and hosts for this data.
b) Trust Value Management: Solely
RSUs are presumed capable of
calculating trust values for specific
vehicles based on collected ratings.
These trust values, representing
aggregated opinions of a finance,
encapsulate its historical message
credibilities. Once calculated, trust
values can be queried by other
finances as needed.
2. Finances: Equipped with onboard
sensors, computers, and
communication devices, finances
undertake data gathering, processing,
and sharing tasks.
With onboard devices, finances
autonomously detect traffic-related events and
communicate warning messages to others
using finance-to-finance communication
standards (e.g., long-term evolution finance-
to-finance or dedicated short-range
communications [22]). However, not all
messages are pertinent. For instance, once a
finance has passed a specific event location,
subsequent reports about the event are no
longer relevant. Therefore, each finance
maintains a reference set comprising
neighbouring finances traveling ahead within a
certain distance, as depicted in Figure 1.
Leveraging messages from the reference set,
finances stay updated on traffic conditions and
respond to potential events in a timely manner.
However, due to potential malfunctions or
misbehaviors, messages from the reference set
are not always reliable. Receivers must
aggregate all messages related to a specific
event and identify credible ones using specific
models, such as the majority rule.
Subsequently, receivers generate ratings for
messages based on credibilities and upload
these ratings to RSUs.
B. Adversary Model
Both finances and RSUs are susceptible
to potential attackers, which could
significantly disrupt trust management system
operations and compromise finance traffic
safety. This paper considers two adversaries:
malicious finances and compromised RSUs.
1) Malicious Finance: Occasional
malicious finances may exist in
financial networks, often with
specific motivations to disrupt
network operations. Such
behaviours pose severe threats to the
safety and efficiency of benign
finances. Malicious finances
primarily engage in two types of
behaviours:
a) Message Spoofing Attack:
Attackers may intentionally
broadcast fake messages to
undermine traffic safety or
efficiency. For instance, a malicious
finance detecting a traffic accident
may broadcast a message falsely
claiming "The road is clear!" to
nearby finances.
b) Bad Mouthing and Ballot
Stuffing Attack: In this system, bad
mouthing (ballot stuffing) attack
refers to finances generating and
uploading unfair negative (positive)
ratings on credible (incredible)
messages. For example, after
receiving a credible message, a
malicious finance may deliberately
generate a negative rating (e.g., -1)
for this message and upload it to the
RSU.
2) Compromised RSU: Positioned
along roads and sometimes lacking
network operator protection, RSUs
are considered semi-trusted entities
vulnerable to compromise by
attackers. Upon intrusion, attackers
can manipulate data stored in RSUs
by adding, deleting, or tampering
with it. However, large-scale
intrusion attacks are improbable due
to limited attacker capacity.
Moreover, periodic security checks
by network operators prevent
prolonged attacker control over
compromised RSUs. Therefore, it is
assumed that attackers can only
compromise a small portion of
RSUs for a brief period.
C. Design Goals
This paper aims to assess, record, and
disseminate finance trustworthiness in
financial networks. Key objectives include
ensuring fair evaluation of all finance
behaviours and enabling access to reliable
trust values of neighbouring finances as
needed. The trust management system design
must achieve the following goals:
1. Decentralization: With the
proliferation of smart finances,
centralized trust management schemes
may become impractical. Thus, the
trust management system must
leverage distributed nodes (i.e., RSUs
and finances) for trust value
calculation based on ratings uploaded
by message receivers, ensuring system
reliability and scalability.
2. Tamper-Proofing: Given RSUs'
vulnerable, distributed nature,
protection against RSU compromise is
essential. Tampering with data stored
in compromised RSUs could
compromise trust management system
reliability. However, large-scale RSU
compromise is improbable due to
limited attacker capacity. Therefore,
the trust management system should
withstand compromise of a small
portion of RSUs.
3. Consistency: High mobility among
finances necessitates seamless trust
data exchange among RSUs to
maintain a consistent database, posing
 a significant challenge for
decentralized trust management in
financial networks.
4. Timeliness: Trust value, reflecting a
finance's overall evaluation based on
its historical behaviours, may change
over time. Consequently, trust values
stored in RSUs must be promptly
updated based on recent message
credibilities.
5. Availability: Trust values stored in
RSUs must be readily accessible to
finances seeking trustworthiness
information on neighbouring entities.
Therefore, an application interface
(API) facilitating finance query
requests and trust value retrieval from
RSUs is necessary.
IV. Methodology
A. Blockchain
Blockchain is a set of techniques
commonly employed in decentralized
networks to maintain a consistent database
among all participants. It was initially
introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto to
encapsulate the core principles of the
renowned digital currency, Bitcoin [21].
Unlike centralized network structures,
blockchain-based networks lack fixed central
nodes. Instead, all network members hold
relatively equal positions and maintain
identical copies of the blockchain.
Consequently, altering data recorded in the
blockchain requires significant computational
power to override the consensus of the
network. Owing to its robust security and
reliability, blockchain has garnered
widespread attention and adoption in recent
years.
As depicted in Figure 2, a blockchain
comprises an ordered list of blocks, with each
block containing a certain number of historical
transactions (TXs). These transactions are
initiated by traders and propagated throughout
the network. Each block is linked to the
previous one by storing a digest (i.e., hash
value) of the preceding block, thereby
ensuring the integrity of the chain.
Additionally, each block typically includes a
nonce, which serves as the solution to a
mathematical problem. The node that solves
this problem is elected as a temporary central
node, or miner, and broadcasts the block to
other network participants. Various miner
election schemes have been proposed in recent
blockchain-based systems, such as Proof of
Work (PoW), Proof of Stake, and Proof of
Capacity [21], wherein nodes with greater
computational power, capital, and storage
capacity stand a higher chance of winning the
election. Consequently, blockchain offers a
viable solution for maintaining data security
and consistency in decentralized networks.
B. Design Overview
In this paper, we explore the utilization of
blockchain to store trust values of finances.
Initially, all finances assess the credibility of
received messages and generate corresponding
ratings. A positive rating (+1) denotes a
credible message, while a negative rating (-1)
signifies an incredible one. These ratings are
then uploaded to the RSU, which assumes a
central role in trust management. Compared to
finances, RSUs typically possess more stable
network topology, reliable communication
channels (e.g., wired links), and enhanced
computing and storage capabilities. These
advantages make RSU an ideal candidate for
decentralized trust management in financial
networks.
Building upon the ratings uploaded by
finances, the RSU is tasked with calculating
trust value offsets for each involved finance
using specific methodologies. In this system,
trust value offsets range between -1 and +1
and are positively correlated with the ratio of
positive ratings. The sum of all offsets
determines the trust value of a finance.
Analogous to the transactions mentioned
earlier, several offsets are bundled into a
candidate block by the RSU. Subsequently, the
RSU vies to be elected as the miner and adds
this block to the blockchain.
 The method of miner election stands as a
pivotal aspect in blockchain-based systems. In
financial networks, prioritizing the addition of
blocks containing the highest total absolute
values of trust offsets is crucial, as it
profoundly impacts the overall trust database.
In our proposed design, we introduce a hybrid
Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake
(PoS) election mechanism. This scheme
considers the sum of absolute offset values
within the candidate block as the stake. RSUs
with larger stakes are more likely to be chosen
as the miner. Consequently, significant
variations in trust values are swiftly reflected
in the blockchain, ensuring timely updates of
recorded data. Through the accumulation of all
offsets for each finance stored in the
blockchain, RSUs can access real-time trust
values.
In contrast, traditional PoS schemes lack
randomization, potentially resulting in RSUs
with substantial stakes consistently winning
elections and impeding trust value updates for
RSUs with lower stakes. Should an RSU with
significant stakes be compromised by an
adversary, it risks compromising the entire
trust system. Furthermore, conventional PoW
schemes solely prioritize miner election based
on computational capacity, failing to
differentiate between high-stake and low-stake
RSUs. Consequently, significant variations in
trust values may not be promptly reflected in
the blockchain.
V. Detailed design of the proposed
system: -
A. Main Procedures
Outlined in Fig. 3, the core processes of
blockchain-based decentralized trust
management unfold across the following steps:
1. Rating Generation and Uploading
2. Calculation of Trust Value Offsets
3. Miner Election and Block Generation
4. Distributed Consensus
Step 1 (Rating Generation and
Uploading): This initial stage unfolds within
finances, particularly among message
receivers. Given the potential for malfunctions
or misbehaviour, messages sourced from the
reference set Ref aren't uniformly trustworthy.
Thus, specific criteria are essential for
message receivers to gauge message credence
and generate ratings. Messages are classified
into groups {M1, M2, Mj}, with Mj
representing the message group conveying
event (e.g., "A traffic accident occurred at road
segment A!"). However, not all messages
within a group bear equal credibility.
Messages originating from finances near the
event location typically hold more reliability
than those from distant counterparts.
Therefore, the message's credibility is defined
as follows:
cj = b + e−γ ·dj (1)
Here, cj denotes the credibility of the
message in group Mj sent by finance k, and dk
signifies the distance between the message
sender and the event location. Parameters b
and γ regulate the lower threshold and rate of
message credibility change, respectively.
Additionally, cj = 0 if finance k fails to report
this event. Employing equation (1), the
receiver derives a credibility set Cj for event
ej. Based on this set, the receiver computes the
aggregated credibility of event e using
Bayesian inference.
Step 2 (Calculation of Trust Value
Offsets): The RSU may encounter conflicting
ratings regarding a specific message (e.g.,
seven positive ratings and three negative
ratings). To ascertain the trust value offset,
weighted aggregation is employed on these
ratings, producing offsets between -1 and +1.
The offset correlates positively with the ratio
of positive ratings on the message. The
calculation of trust value offset is expressed
as:
oj=θ1·m−θ2·n m+n
(3)
Here, oj denotes the trust value offset of
finance k based on message j, and oj ∈ [−1, 1].
m and n represent the count of positive and
negative ratings, respectively, with weights θ1
and θ2 determined through equation (4).
Construction of Si: Si, comprising a
series of binary bits, influences the generation
speed of offset blocks for each RSU. The
relationship between Si and Fi (the sum of
absolute values of trust value offsets) is
defined as:
Si = 2Nm−Nz − 1
(7)
Here, Nz indicates the count of continuous
zeros at the top of Si, and Nm denotes the bits
of the hash value dependent on the hash
algorithm.
Step 3 (Miner Election and Block
Generation): In light of the decentralized
network structure, a miner is periodically
elected from all RSUs to produce new offset
blocks. The proposed miner election method
integrates a joint Proof of Work (PoW) and
Proof of Stake (PoS) mechanism. RSUs with
larger stakes stand a better chance of being
selected as the miner, ensuring the timely
update of data stored in the blockchain. This
approach fosters fairness among RSUs,
preventing any RSU with disproportionately
large Fi from continuously winning the
election.
Once the RSU successfully adds the
offset block into the blockchain, it clears the
elements in Oi, thus ensuring the system's
consistency.
The format of an offset block, as
depicted in Fig. 5, comprises two main
sections: the header and body. The header
encompasses:
1. Essential block details such as the
block ID, RSU ID, and generation
time.
2. The hash of the preceding rating
block, facilitating the chaining of this
block to the existing blockchain.
3. Information to validate the block's
authenticity, including the nonce and
hash threshold.
The body primarily encompasses the list
of trust value offsets.
Step 4 (Distributed Consensus): Upon
receiving a block from the miner, the RSU
verifies the nonce's validity and proceeds to
append it to its blockchain. Occasionally, the
RSU might receive multiple blocks
simultaneously, leading to blockchain forking.
To address this, a distributed consensus
mechanism is employed. Each RSU selects a
fork to follow, with the fork garnering the
most RSU endorsements advancing faster.
Ultimately, the longest fork becomes the
network's distributed consensus, while others
are discarded. Additionally, each RSU retains
blocks generated in discarded forks for
potential future blockchain integration,
ensuring network consistency.
B. Application Interface
1. Trust Value Query: When a finance
seeks another's trust value, it
dispatches a query request (QueryReq,
VINi, VINj) to the nearby RSU. VINi
and VINj denote the identity numbers
of the requesting and target finances,
respectively. Upon receiving the
query, the RSU verifies the requester's
identity and aggregates stored offsets
to determine the target finance's
current trust value (Trj). Subsequently,
the RSU sends a response (VINj,
En(Trj)pki) to the requester, with Trj
encrypted using the requester's public
key.
2. Warning and Revocation: RSUs can
take actions such as warning and
revocation for finances with relatively
low trust values. Two thresholds,
Rwarn and Rmin, are defined for this
purpose, where Rwarn > Rmin.
Finances below Rwarn are added to
the warning list, publicly broadcasted
 by RSUs. Warned finances must
actively broadcast credible messages
to improve their trust values.
Conversely, finances below Rmin face
revocation, rendering them ineligible
for network services.
VI. Security Analysis
A. Defence Against Malicious Finance:
1) Message Spoofing Attack: To counter
malicious finance broadcasting fake messages,
the system employs a Bayesian inference-
based rating generation mechanism. This
scheme enables message receivers to assess
the credibility of messages from various
reference finances regarding a specific event.
By analyzing messages from multiple sources,
receivers can discern trustworthy messages.
With the API's assistance, finances can
conveniently query specific neighbors' trust
values, crucial for assessing message
credibility.
2) Bad Mouthing and Ballot Stuffing Attack:
Malicious finances may attempt to manipulate
trust by uploading unfair ratings. However,
each receiver can only assign one binary rating
per event, broadcasted to all neighbors. The
limited number of attackers makes it
challenging for unfair ratings to significantly
impact aggregated trust values.
B. Defence Against Compromised RSU
In the scenario where some RSUs are
briefly compromised, blockchain techniques
ensure consistency across RSUs. All RSUs
maintain identical blockchain versions,
continually appending new blocks.
Compromised RSUs, upon regaining control,
can identify discrepancies by detecting
changes in locally stored data, which alters the
hash value of the last block, inconsistent with
subsequent blocks from benign RSUs.
Moreover, compromised RSUs might
propagate fake blocks, yet they must compete
for block addition. Limited attacker numbers
and brief compromise durations result in few
fake blocks. Additionally, an upper bound on
block stakes inhibits compromised RSUs from
generating excessively influential fake blocks,
mitigating their impact.
VII. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
A. Calculation of Trust Value Offsets
This section outlines the processes
from messages to ratings and from ratings to
trust value offsets. Fig. 6 depicts the
correlation between unfair ratings and false
messages. When attackers send false
messages, benign finances may produce unfair
ratings. With a small number of false
messages, the percentage of unfair ratings
remains low, as the Bayesian-based model can
discern the truth from benign reports.
However, as false messages increase, the
percentage of unfair ratings rises, eventually
reaching near 1 as false messages become the
majority, misleading the model. Moreover,
prior knowledge of event probability enhances
decision-making efficacy, as evidenced by the
outperformance of the line with more prior
knowledge compared to the neutral prior
probability line.
Fig. 7 illustrates the relationship
between trust value offsets and the percentage
of negative ratings. Different functions tested
for offset calculation based on equations (3)
and (4) show gradual offset decreases with
increasing negative ratings. The choice of F(x)
impacts offsets, with some functions being less
vulnerable to unfair ratings, such as the offset
with F(x) = x3.
B. Block Generation:
Following the acquisition of finance trust
value offsets, RSUs attempt to become miners
and publish blocks. Block generation time T is
primarily influenced by two parameters: the
sum of absolute offsets Fi and hash rate M.
Fig. 8 shows T decreasing gradually with
increasing Fi due to larger Fi indicating a
larger hash threshold Si, facilitating nonce
acquisition. Additionally, T decreases with
increasing M, enabling RSUs to try more
nonces per second.
Comparatively, the block generation time
under the PoW scheme is also evaluated. In
this scheme, block generation time depends
solely on the hash rate of each node, as all
nodes have the same hash threshold. However,
as RSUs generally have similar hash rates,
block generation opportunities are relatively
equal. Hence, PoW block generation time
remains unchanged with stake, unlike the
proposed scheme, which reflects differences
between high and low stake RSUs, facilitating
faster trust value updates.
C. Communications Overhead:
Wireless channels transmit two types of
data in financial networks: messages and
ratings. Messages, triggered by road-related
events, are broadcasted by finances, with a
packet size of 800 bytes to align with event-
triggered data. Ratings, nonsafety data
generated by message receivers, accumulate
multiple ratings within a time period, packing
them into data packets for upload to nearby
RSUs. Fig. 9 demonstrates that transmission
latency of both messages and ratings increases
with data arrival rate. Moreover, rating packet
latency exceeds that of messages due to larger
packet sizes.
VIII. DISCUSSION
A. Trust-Based Data Credibility
Assessment:
In the proposed system, Bayesian
Inference is employed for message rating
generation. During this process, the distance
between the message sender and the event
location serves as an indicator of message
credibility. Additionally, the current trust
value of the message sender significantly
influences message credibility assessment. By
querying trust values from the RSU, the
message receiver can combine this information
with the distance factor to derive a more
reliable assessment. The assessment is
formulated as follows:
\[ c_j = \alpha_1 \cdot e^{-\gamma \cdot d_j}
+ \alpha_2 \cdot R_k \]
Here, \( R_k \) denotes the trust value
of the message sender, \( Ref \) represents the
receiver's reference set, and \( \alpha_1 \) and \
( \alpha_2 \) are parameters regulating the
weight of each component.
B. Privacy Issues:
Privacy stands as a significant concern in
financial networks. In the proposed system,
the finance identity number serves as the
identifier for each finance, posing a potential
risk of privacy breach. For instance, attackers
could exploit the finance identity number to
uncover the actual identity of the finance
owner. A plausible solution entails using the
public key as the finance identifier, which acts
as a meaningless string. Moreover, finances
can periodically alter their public keys through
interactions with RSUs. However, these
measures unavoidably heighten
communication and computation overheads in
the network. Consequently, striking a balance
between privacy preservation and efficient
trust management remains an intriguing yet
daunting challenge in financial networks.
IX. CONCLUSION
In this study, we introduced a blockchain-
based decentralized trust management system
tailored for financial networks. This system
empowers finances to inquire about the
trustworthiness of neighbouring entities,
thereby enabling them to evaluate the
credibility of received messages. Trust values
are consolidated within RSUs based on ratings
generated by message receivers. Leveraging
blockchain techniques, all RSUs collaborate to
uphold a dependable and uniform database.
Through a series of simulations, we assessed
the performance of the entire system, revealing
its effectiveness and feasibility in
decentralized trust management. Nonetheless,
future investigations are imperative. For
instance, exploring the integration of trust
management and privacy preservation
warrants thorough examination. It is
anticipated that the establishment of a robust
decentralized trust management system will
significantly enhance the ability of finances to
discern the credibility of neighbors, fostering
the development of a secure and efficient
intelligent transportation network.