[External] Re: [Hyperledger Cactus] Hyperledger Cactus Academic Paper

Somogyvari, Peter

Hi Rafael,

Thank you. Should I see something pop up when I log in to overleaf? The "projects" screen is empty, same as before.


Peter Somogyvari

Technology Architect

Accenture Products & Platforms (APP)

Office: +1 (415) 537-5541

Mobile: +1 (650) 488-1741

From: cactus@... <cactus@...> on behalf of Rafael André Pestana Belchior <rafael.belchior@...>
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 11:43 AM
To: cactus@... <cactus@...>
Subject: [External] Re: [Hyperledger Cactus] Hyperledger Cactus Academic Paper
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments.

Hello all,

First of all, thank you all for your interest! @Peter, @Clive, @Hart, @Fujimoto-san, great to have you onboard! I've added you to the shared document where we can start discussing our paper. 


I totally agree. The outline for the paper (as well as the "story" we want to transmit) are crucial points. I think we should meet and discuss an initial outline, detailing the strong points of Cactus. I've added a preliminary outline, present in the shared Overleaf project.

Given this, shall we discuss a preliminary outline (maybe counting with the whitepaper as a reference) on the Cactus Contributors Meeting?


Agreed. I think the paper needs to show what Cactus brings to the academic and industry communities, and it should of course contain a solid evaluation. Some good questions that the evaluation responds to are: what is the degree of decentralization of a Cactus Consortium? What is the performance penalty for mediating transactions across 2 blockchains with Cactus? And with 3? How does the geographical distance between Cactus' nodes affect the consortium performance, etc. We need to discuss this as a team, along with @Peter.

I think the novel contribution that Fabric brought was not its performance evaluation methodology, but rather being the first (if i'm not mistaken) distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains, tailored for enterprises. Their strongest innovation, in my POV, is the execute-order-validate paradigm, which allowed for much better tx throughput than public blockchains.

Conversely, Cactus has a lot of strong points that differentiates it from current academic work - it can pave its way to becoming the status quo for enterprise interoperability solutions.

Conference vs Journal: in my view, I would like to submit on the place that brings the most visibility to this project. In light of this, we should submit to a top conference or a top journal. My research group advised me to write my papers in a way I express all the ideas and concepts, without summarizing anything. Then, depending on the submission site, the article may be shortened. This allows us to be flexible and keep doors opened regarding the submission. 

Looking to hearing from you.



A 2020-08-07 11:17, doris.benda via escreveu:

Hello, academic paper enthusiasts,

Traditionally, academic papers are heavily rated and evaluated based on their novel contribution during the peer review process. Therefore,
among the sections introduction, background, architecture, related work ... (which can be loosely based on the white paper or talks given by cactus members), there should be a section called numerical evaluation, benchmarking or experimental section which uses graphs to derive a novel contribution or affirms a novel hypothesis. The "5.2 Experiments" section in the Fabric paper is a good example. They evaluate the performance of Fabric in terms of throughput based on several parameters that are varied. Since Fabric was new at that time, this performance evaluation was their novel contribution. I feel, that the "novel contribution" and the related sections will need some work and discussion among people because so far there is nothing in the white paper that can be recycled for it.

Just to clarify, this will be a conference paper in the end or can it also be journal paper?

Rafael Belchior
Ph.D. student in Computer Science and Engineering, Blockchain - Técnico Lisboa

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Accenture and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned by our systems for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with Accenture policy. Your privacy is important to us. Accenture uses your personal data only in compliance with data protection laws. For further information on how Accenture processes your personal data, please see our privacy statement at