| Literature DB >> 35236902 |
Feng Liu1,2,3, Cheng-Yi Yang4, Jie Yang4,5, De-Li Kong6, Ai-Min Zhou7,8, Jia-Yin Qi4, Zhi-Bin Li9,10.
Abstract
As a distributed storage scheme, the blockchain network lacks storage space has been a long-term concern in this field. At present, there are relatively few research on algorithms and protocols to reduce the storage requirement of blockchain, and the existing research has limitations such as sacrificing fault tolerance performance and raising time cost, which need to be further improved. Facing the above problems, this paper proposes a protocol based on Distributed Image Storage Protocol (DISP), which can effectively improve blockchain storage space and reduces computational costs in the help of InterPlanetary File System (IPFS). In order to prove the feasibility of the protocol, we make full use of IPFS and distributed database to design a simulation experiment for blockchain. Through distributed pooling (DP) algorithm in this protocol, we can divide image evidence into recognizable several small files and stored in several nodes. And these files can be restored to lossless original documents again by inverse distributed pooling (IDP) algorithm after authorization. These advantages in performance create conditions for large scale industrial and commercial applications.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35236902 PMCID: PMC8891285 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07494-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Architecture of distributed image storage protocol.
Figure 2Sketch map of distributed pooling algorithm.
Figure 3Address writing and calling through IPFS.
Comparison of DP effects under different pooling kernel parameters.
| Kernel size | Time consuming | Storage size (Kb) | Fault tolerance | Quantity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 × 2 | 0.1475 | 12.86 | recognizable | 4 |
| 4 × 4 | 0.1655 | 4.89 | recognizable | 16 |
| 8 × 8 | 0.1587 | 2.05 | blurring | 64 |
| 16 × 16 | 0.1547 | 1.06 | unrecognizable | 256 |
| 2 × 4 | 0.1537 | 8.05 | recognizable | 8 |
| 4 × 2 | 0.1534 | 7.67 | recognizable | 8 |
| 4 × 8 | 0.1544 | 3.14 | blurring | 32 |
| 8 × 4 | 0.1530 | 3.02 | blurring | 32 |
| 2 × 8 | 0.1573 | 5.01 | barely discerning | 16 |
| 8 × 2 | 0.1502 | 4.70 | barely discerning | 16 |
Figure 4The result feedback of adding address into database.
Figure 5Test results on IPFS.
Figure 6Query IPFS address from database.
Performance of different methods.
| Methods | Sparse ratio (%) | Type | Time consuming (s) | Reconstruction accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CoSaMP | 6.25 | Compressed sensing | 3.85 ± 0.04 | 3.64 |
| IHT | 6.25 | Compressed sensing | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 10.83 |
| IRLS | 6.25 | Compressed sensing | 2.41 ± 0.03 | 62.07 |
| SP | 6.25 | Compressed sensing | 0.56 ± 0.02 | 71.91 |
| DISP | 6.25 | Distributed down-sampling | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 100 |
| CoSaMP | 25 | Compressed sensing | 54.50 ± 0.5 | 19.41 |
| IHT | 25 | Compressed sensing | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 55.38 |
| IRLS | 25 | Compressed sensing | 23.89 ± 0.1 | 85.92 |
| SP | 25 | Compressed sensing | 3.96 ± 0.04 | 86.45 |
| DISP | 25 | Distributed down-sampling | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 100 |