Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decentralised Argumentation for Data Vetting in Blockchains

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Blockchain and Applications, 4th International Congress (BLOCKCHAIN 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 595))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 490 Accesses

Abstract

Although it is difficult to overwrite the data kept in blockchains, there are numerous incidents of false data insertion in blockchains. Current blockchain technologies can not prevent such false insertion into blockchains. In this paper, we present a blockchain model that can prevent such immutable lies. We have several contributions in this paper: we developed a decentralised argumentation protocol that allows auditors to decide the validity of a claim, we developed an incentive system for the auditors not to withheld any evidence for or against a claim, we developed methods to execute the decentralised argumentation protocol in blockchain offline channels for high scale execution of the proposed data vetting method. We prove that the proposed data vetting method executed in the blockchain offline channel network is correct.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.fmi.org/our-research/supermarket-facts.

References

  1. Ayaz, Y., Ayaz, N., Erol, I.: Detection of species in meat and meat products using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J. Muscle Foods 17(2), 214–220 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value based argumentation frameworks. CoRR cs.AI/0207059 (2002). https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0207059

  3. Benet, J.: IPFS—content addressed, versioned, P2P file system. CoRR abs/1407.3561 (2014). https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3561

  4. Charlebois, S., Sterling, B., Haratifar, S., Naing, S.K.: Comparison of global food traceability regulations and requirements. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13(5), 1104–1123 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chuah, L.O., He, X.B., Effarizah, M.E., Syahariza, Z.A., Shamila-Syuhada, A.K., Rusul, G.: Mislabelling of beef and poultry products sold in Malaysia. Food Control 62, 157–164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.10.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dziuda, W.: Strategic argumentation. J. Econ. Theor. 146(4), 1362–1397 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2011.05.017

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Grammenos, A., Paramithiotis, S., Drosinos, E.H., Trafialek, J.: Labeling accuracy and detection of DNA sequences originating from GMOs in meat products commercially available in Greece. LWT 137, 110420 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van Hilten, M., Ongena, G., Ravesteijn, P.: Blockchain for organic food traceability: case studies on drivers and challenges. Front. Blockchain 3, 43 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2020.567175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS ’03, pp. 883–890. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/860575.860717

  11. Leite, L., Alves, T., Alcântara, J.: Merging argumentation systems. In: 2015 Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS), pp. 110–115 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/BRACIS.2015.45

  12. Litscher, G., Cai, Y., Li, X., Lv, R., Yang, J., Li, J., He, Y., Pan, L.: Quantitative analysis of pork and chicken products by droplet digital PCR. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 810209 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/810209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Munteanu, A.R.: The third party certification system for organic products. Netw. Intell. Stud. (6), 145–151 (2015). https://ideas.repec.org/a/cmj/networ/y2015i5p145-151.html

  14. Naaum, A.M., Shehata, H.R., Chen, S., Li, J., Tabujara, N., Awmack, D., Lutze-Wallace, C., Hanner, R.: Complementary molecular methods detect undeclared species in sausage products at retail markets in Canada. Food Control 84, 339–344 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.07.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Panisson, A.R., Bordini, R.H.: Towards a computational model of argumentation schemes in agent-oriented programming languages. In: 2020 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), pp. 9–16 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/WIIAT50758.2020.00007

  16. Poon, J., Dryja, T.: The bitcoin lightning network: scalable off-chain instant payments (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, Illinois, USA, July 13–17, 2008, pp. 150–155. AAAI Press (2008). https://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/2008/aaai08-024.php

  18. Roth, B., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Governatori, G.: Strategic argumentation: a game theoretical investigation. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ’07, pp. 81–90. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1276318.1276333

Download references

Acknowledgement

This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant Number SFI/12/RC/2289, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Subhasis Thakur & John Breslin

Authors
  1. Subhasis Thakur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Breslin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Subhasis Thakur .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Informática y Automática, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    Javier Prieto

  2. Parque Tecnológico de la Salud (PTS), Granada, Spain

    Francisco Luis Benítez Martínez

  3. University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy

    Stefano Ferretti

  4. Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Madrid, Spain

    David Arroyo Guardeño

  5. Facultad de Derecho, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    Pedro Tomás Nevado-Batalla

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Thakur, S., Breslin, J. (2023). Decentralised Argumentation for Data Vetting in Blockchains. In: Prieto, J., Benítez Martínez, F.L., Ferretti, S., Arroyo Guardeño, D., Tomás Nevado-Batalla, P. (eds) Blockchain and Applications, 4th International Congress . BLOCKCHAIN 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 595. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21229-1_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation