Hi all!

1- I would like to complete my research on Blockchain and Demand Response, specifically focusing on Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Energy Transaction Privacy, like this work:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/80d5/ad14759c6f59367108e24b420db4e3b2cb36.pdf

I am seeking ways to improve my work and introduce new novelty to it. What would be the most effective approach to enhance and innovate my research?

=================

2- If I intend to explore alternative cryptographic techniques instead of Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) for my research, what would be the most suitable cryptography to choose in order to introduce a new novelty?

 

any good idea?

 

Since this is supposed to be YOUR research, shouldn't you be the one doing the research instead of asking other people to do it for you and then spoon feed you their results? If someone else comes up with how to introduce new novelty to it, and find the most effective approach to do it, and figure out what the most suitable cryptographic techniques are for it, then shouldn't they get the credit that you are seeking for yourself?

 

Given the nature of this graph, the entire endeavor seems pretty ironic.

​

The energy cost of blockchain transactions is enormous. While the authors of the linked paper have worked hard they've baked in the assumption that using a blockchain otherwise makes sense. Everything about practical implementations of blockchains suggest they are unsustainable from an energy usage perspective. They also don't seem necessary for this application but another baked in assumption is that blockchain style distribution is the only way a system that energy consumers trust can be built. This is at least premature, as there is no proof provided for this implicit assertion.

(As an aside, I find the use of so many trendy terms in the paper (e.g.: prosumer, which they even add adjectives to as if it means consumer) to reduce the credibility of the work rather than increase it.)

 

(As an aside, I find the use of so many trendy terms in the paper (e.g.: prosumer, which they even add adjectives to as if it means consumer) to reduce the credibility of the work rather than increase it.)

Rather annoyingly "prosumer" has made it into the official regulations:
https://shop.theiet.org/code-of-practice-for-electrical-energy-storage-systems-2nd-edition

 

Rather annoyingly "prosumer" has made it into the official regulations:
https://shop.theiet.org/code-of-practice-for-electrical-energy-storage-systems-2nd-edition

Well, that is annoying. I have no problem with neologisms that increase the expressive power of language but I do object those that tend to obscure it.

 

Well, that is annoying. I have no problem with neologisms that increase the expressive power of language but I do object those that tend to obscure it.

Agreed: “pro” is normally short for “professional”, so to the uninitiated, a “prosumer” is someone who buys products for professional use.

The code of practice I mentioned is a dreadful book, which spends 146 pages stating the bleedin’ obvious in terms of obscure acronyms and neologisms no-one has previously heard. Glad I didn’t spend my own money on it!
Meanwhile, back to block chain. . . . .

 

Well, that is annoying. I have no problem with neologisms that increase the expressive power of language but I do object those that tend to obscure it.

This said, I will adjust my criticism in this way: “prosumer” in this context has a technical meaning, but it also has a common meaning in other contexts. The construction of the word in this context seems to take ”pro” from producer and “sumer” from consumer. So, for the purpose of the context it could be a very useful word.

The problem is, “-sumer” is not not a cogent part of “consume”, and “pro-“ lacks the content needed to understand it is from “produce”. So, while it is a technical term, it can’t be understood without knowing what it means. Parsing the prefix and suffix derives nothing useful. The pre-existing use to me “equipment that lies on the boundary between profession and consumer gear” only muddles this.

Prioritizing brevity and pronouncability over parseability makes it just another obstacle to learning.

 

This said, I will adjust my criticism in this way: “prosumer” in this context has a technical meaning, but it also has a common meaning in other contexts. The construction of the word in this context seems to take ”pro” from producer and “sumer” from consumer. So, for the purpose of the context it could be a very useful word.

The problem is, “-sumer” is not not a cogent part of “consume”, and “pro-“ lacks the content needed to understand it is from “produce”. So, while it is a technical term, it can’t be understood without knowing what it means. Parsing the prefix and suffix derives nothing useful. The pre-existing use to me “equipment that lies on the boundary between profession and consumer gear” only muddles this.

Prioritizing brevity and pronouncability over parseability makes it just another obstacle to learning.

They‘ll not get it past the Académie Française!

 

They‘ll not get it past the Académie Française!

Unless they just decide to deem it “French”, like “drug store” and “cowboy”.