Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 10, 2021. It is now read-only.

Latest commit

 

History

History
39 lines (23 loc) · 3.21 KB

advantages-and-disadvantages.md

File metadata and controls

39 lines (23 loc) · 3.21 KB

Advantages and Disadvantages of using IOTA for GDPR proof energy data streams

Advantages

Device and IOTA UI (My Home) are in sync since they use the same backend

Because the energy reader device software, the IOTA UI for managing consent, and the service providers can view the same MAM channel, they have the same view of the world. This means that when the IOTA UI revokes an authorization this is irrefutably recorded in the distributed ledger - all players are aware of the revoked consent.

Relatively simple to access data for a service provider

Only need to MAM root and side key (and a decrypting backend). No need for complicated backends that fetch data.

Relatively simple to send data for a data provider

Only need MAM library, the raspberry-pi-client software installed, and an address of an IOTA node.

Multiplexing

Once the data is published on an MAM address multiple authorized listeners can fetch the data.

Disadvantages

Proof of Work

Older Dutch smart meters (DSRM 2.0, 2.2 and 4.0) send one message every 10 seconds. Newer models (DSRM 5.0) every second.

It is not possible to send a P1 energy data message every 10 seconds, let alone every second with MAM using a standard node. The Proof of Work for attaching MAM message takes on average 50 seconds on mainnet.

Furthermore, with regular hardware, the energy used doing proof of work for data publishing is higher than the estimated energy savings from usage of the data.

There are advancements where dedicated hardware can run proof of work much quicker. For example an FPGA for the Raspberry Pi can run proof of work for one transaction in 18 milliseconds! With dedicated hardware sharing energy data is feasible in the future. This can also be run on nodes called PoWboxes.

Right to be forgotten

Data is immutable and will always be available in the Tangle. The service provider has to be trusted that the root and side key will be removed. This is similar as in the case of a non immutable ledger situations, where the service provider has to be trusted that the data is removed. In this case the service provider needs to be trusted to have removed the data and the side keys.

There is a risk that the encryption (although we use the quantum proof NTRU) will be broken in the future. This means data in an encrypted cloud is no longer unreadable. Because of snapshots that remove the data (zero value transactions) automatically a permanode is necessary for being able to decrypt older data.

Metadata published on the Tangle

AUTHORIZED, AUTHORIZATION_REVOKED, DEVICE_ADDED and DEVICE_DELETED events are published on a private MAM channel. This information will always be available for those that have the root. Arguably this data is personally identifiable (e.g., adding multiple service providers and devices, or observing someone when actions are taken, can create a profile of a user) and thus must adhere to the GDPR.

Links

See IOTA Report Overview for a balanced critique of the current state of the Tangle.