Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Different universities using blockchain [19]
| S. No. | University and country | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ASU, USA |
|
| 2 | UNIC, Cyprus |
|
| 3 | University of Malta, Malta |
|
| 4 | Imperial College London, UK |
|
| 5 | ETH Zurich, Switzerland |
|
Comparison of different blockchain platforms
| Parameters | Public blockchain | Private blockchain | Consortium blockchain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Network type | Public decentralized | Partially decentralized | Partially decentralized |
| Access | Anyone | Single organization | Multiple selected organizations |
| Efficiency | Low | High | High |
| Centralized | No | Yes | Partial |
| No. of users | More | Less | Less |
| Speed | Slow | Fast | Fast |
| Scalability | Harder to scale | Easier to scale | Easier to scale |
| Example | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin | Ripple, Hyperledger | Quorum, Corda |
Comparison between traditional record-keeping systems and blockchain technology
| S. No. | Parameters | Traditional record-keeping | Blockchain technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Type of system | Centralized | Decentralized |
| 2. | Transparency | Low | High |
| 3. | Security | Less secure | Highly secure |
| 4 | Auditing | Difficult | Easy |