|
| Scheme | Description | Weakness |
|
| Christidis and Devetsikiotis [70] | Integration of blockchains and smart contracts simplifies the sharing of IoT services and resources as well as authorises the automation cryptographically. | No discussion of the IoT security improvement. |
| Malviya [71] | Explanation of how blockchain features used for IoT security. | Blockchains type is not specified, and there is no implementation. |
| Bahga and Madisetti [72] | Proposing an architecture for a blockchain platform for the industrial IoT, which advances the cloud-based manufacturing functionality. | Due to the key-pair generated by the device, system security is low. |
| Hardjono and Smith [73] | A privacy-preserving method called as ChainAnchor used for cloud and IoT device integration. | Cannot support identification. |
| Huh et al. [74] | Presenting an approach, which integrates blockchains to IoT and configures each object by a proprietary smart contract. | Both malicious and the nonmalicious user can utilize the system due to the full anonymity of the used objects. |
| Ruta et al. [75] | Proposing a framework for semantic web of things by a semantic-based resource discovery layer and a basic blockchain infrastructure combination. | Using a private blockchain limits its usage. |
| Dorri et al. [76] | Developing an architecture that consists of a local blockchain per use case, a shared blockchain, and an overlay blockchain. | The local blockchains limit availability as they are centralized. Moreover, there is an identification issue and communication enhancement because of the high activity of nodes. |
| Ouaddah et al. [77] | Proposing a framework for IoT (FairAccess) that stores the policies in a private blockchain. | Handling just policy-based systems makes it infeasible for IoT. |
| Xu et al. [78] | Presenting saphire, which is a blockchain-based distributed storage system to be applied for vast data analytics. | There is no IoT security requirements consideration. |
|
