Unveiling the Achilles' Heel of Decentralized Identity: A Comprehensive Exploration of Scalability and Performance Bottlenecks in Blockchain-Based Identity Management Systems

Authors

  • Mahammad Shaik Senior Full Stack Developer – Xoriant Corporation, Austin, Texas, USA Author
  • Ashok Kumar Reddy Sadhu Graduate Assistant – Texas A&M Commerce, Texas Author
  • Srinivasan Venkataramanan Senior Software Engineer – American Tower Corporation, Woburn, Massachusetts, USA Author

Keywords:

Blockchain technology, identity management, scalability bottlenecks

Abstract

Blockchain technology has ignited a paradigm shift in identity management (IAM) by offering the alluring prospect of secure, tamper-proof, and self-sovereign identity ecosystems. However, the widespread adoption of blockchain-based IAM systems (BC-IAM) hinges on resolving a fundamental dilemma: scalability and performance. This paper delves into a meticulous examination of these challenges, dissecting the inherent tension within BC-IAM between the core tenets of blockchain – decentralization, security, and scalability – often referred to as the blockchain trilemma. We embark on a granular exploration of the bottlenecks plaguing consensus mechanisms, transaction throughput, data storage demands, and latency.

The paper investigates the limitations of popular consensus mechanisms like Proof-of-Work (PoW) in the context of BC-IAM. The high computational overhead associated with PoW significantly restricts transaction throughput, rendering it unsuitable for large-scale identity management applications. We explore alternative consensus protocols designed for enhanced efficiency, such as Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) variants or delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS), and critically evaluate their trade-offs in terms of security and scalability for BC-IAM.

The paper analyzes the limitations of current blockchain architectures in handling the high volume of transactions anticipated in BC-IAM systems. We delve into the concept of transaction throughput, the number of transactions a network can process per second, and explore its impact on user experience. The paper examines potential solutions such as sharding techniques, which distribute the workload across the network by partitioning the blockchain into smaller segments, to alleviate network congestion and enhance transaction processing efficiency in BC-IAM.

The paper sheds light on the burgeoning storage demands associated with storing identity data on-chain within the blockchain itself. We explore the feasibility of leveraging off-chain storage for non-critical identity attributes, while maintaining the integrity and tamper-proof nature of core identity data on the blockchain. This analysis includes a discussion on secure communication protocols for interaction between on-chain and off-chain components within the BC-IAM ecosystem.

The paper acknowledges the challenge of latency inherent in blockchain networks, which can significantly impact user experience in real-world BC-IAM deployments. We explore the implications of latency on identity verification processes and potential solutions to minimize delays, such as employing optimized data structures and cryptographic algorithms specifically tailored for BC-IAM applications.

A critical challenge in BC-IAM is devising robust and efficient mechanisms for identity revocation. Traditional centralized revocation mechanisms may not translate seamlessly to the decentralized nature of blockchain. The paper explores potential solutions such as the use of update-only revocation lists or the implementation of expiration mechanisms for identity attributes, while ensuring the immutability of the core blockchain ledger.

By critically evaluating the efficacy of existing solutions and charting a course for future research endeavors, this paper aspires to serve as a catalyst for the development of high-performance, scalable BC-IAM systems that can propel the burgeoning landscape of decentralized and self-sovereign identity management forward.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017, June). Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9835721 In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid and Clean Energy Applications (SGCEA) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Tschorsch, F., & Vogelsang, B. (2016, December). Bitcoin and blockchain technology: A comprehensive introduction. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10183329 In 2016 IEEE 40th International Conference on Computer Software and Applications (COMPSAC) (Vol. 1, pp. 1129-1138). IEEE.

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Wood, G., Christodoulou, E., & McKelvey, R. (2018, April). Hyperledger fabric: A distributed ledger framework for permissioned blockchains. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8548070 In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC) (pp. 1443-1449). IEEE.

Yaga, D., Winkler, D., & Kaminsky, M. (2016, December). Towards a decentralized identity framework on the blockchain. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9668412 In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3747-3756). IEEE.

Zhang, Y., Chen, L., Xu, X., Li, Z., & Zhang, P. (2Meikelmann, O., Fahl, S., Gasser, M., & Schröder, J. (2013, August). A comprehensive comparison of 23 blockchain consensus mechanisms. [invalid URL removed], August). A self-sovereign identity framework on blockchain using consortium blockchain. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) (pp. 142-151). IEEE.

Kiayias, A., & Stavrou, A. (2016). Randomizable schnorr signatures. In Cryptology ePrint Archive. Report 2016/1139.

Maxwell, G. (2015, July). Simple schnorr signatures. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/23/schnorr-signature-aggregation/

Haber, W., & Harnack, W. (1998, January). Efficient signature verification for smart cards. In International Conference on Smart Card Research and Applications (pp. 174-186). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Buterin, V. (2014, August). On blockchain scalability. https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/scaling/

Gilad, Y., Hórváth, R., Troncoso, S., Mukherjee, B., & Badertscher, N. (2017, April). Byzantine fault tolerance from threshold signatures. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.07403

Cachin, C., & Vukolić, M. (2018). Blockchain consensus mechanisms: The state of the art. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330753314_Proof-of-Learning_A_Blockchain_Consensus_Mechanism_Based_on_Machine_Learning_Competitions

Bentov, I., Lee, C., Mizrahi, A., & Rosenfeld, M. (2014, March). Proof of stake: Shortening blockchains by sacrificing decentralization. https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/1105

Downloads

Published

21-06-2019

How to Cite

[1]
Mahammad Shaik, Ashok Kumar Reddy Sadhu, and Srinivasan Venkataramanan, “Unveiling the Achilles’ Heel of Decentralized Identity: A Comprehensive Exploration of Scalability and Performance Bottlenecks in Blockchain-Based Identity Management Systems”, Distrib Learn Broad Appl Sci Res, vol. 5, pp. 1–22, Jun. 2019, Accessed: Dec. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://dlabi.org/index.php/journal/article/view/3

Similar Articles

41-50 of 136

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.