skip to main content
10.1145/3022227.3022325acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicuimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Ushare: user controlled social media based on blockchain

Published:05 January 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the potential for blockchain based solutions to disrupt the world of social networking. We offer Ushare, a user centric blockchain supported social media network that enables users to control, trace and claim ownership of every piece of content they share. Harnessing peer-to-peer capabilities of the blockchain technology allows a truly decentralized, secure, anonymous and traceable content distribution network. Ushare consists of four key components: the blockchain, a hash table with encrypted content shared by a user, a Turing complete relationship system to control the the maximum number of shares performed by user's circle members and a local personal certificate authority that manages the user's circles and encrypts data to be shared before it is broadcasted to the network.

References

  1. M. Ali, J. Nelson, R. Shea, and M. J. Freedman. Blockstack: A global naming and storage system secured by blockchains. In 2016 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 16), 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Andrychowicz, S. Dziembowski, D. Malinowski, and L. Mazurek. Secure multiparty computations on bitcoin. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 443--458. IEEE, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Ball. Nsas prism surveillance program: how it works and what it can do. The Guardian, 8, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. J. P. Barlow. A declarationof the independence of cyberspace, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Baxendale. Can blockchain revolutionise eprs? ITNOW, 58(1):38--39, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. I. Bentov and R. Kumaresan. How to use bitcoin to design fair protocols. In International Cryptology Conference, pages 421--439. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. V. Buterin. A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. white paper, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. R. Buyya, C. S. Yeo, S. Venugopal, J. Broberg, and I. Brandic. Cloud computing and emerging it platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation computer systems, 25(6):599--616, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Cachin. Architecture of the hyperledger blockchain fabric. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Chang, J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, W. C. Hsieh, D. A. Wallach, M. Burrows, T. Chandra, A. Fikes, and R. E. Gruber. Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 26(2):4, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Chaum, A. Fiat, and M. Naor. Untraceable electronic cash. In Proceedings on Advances in cryptology, pages 319--327. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. P. Devanbu, M. Gertz, C. Martel, and S. G. Stubblebine. Authentic third-party data publication. In Data and Application Security, pages 101--112. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. V. Goel. Facebook tinkers with users emotions in news feed experiment, stirring outcry. The New York Times, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Halevi, D. Harnik, B. Pinkas, and A. Shulman-Peleg. Proofs of ownership in remote storage systems. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 491--500. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. Hardekopf. The big data breaches of 2014. Forbes, January, 13, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Hayes. Evidence for bitcoin. Altcoin Price Efficiency: Miners' Arbitrage in Cryptocurrency Markets, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. S. King and S. Nadal. Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. self-published paper, August, 19, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. Konforty, Y. Adam, D. Estrada, and L. G. Meredith. Synereo: The decentralized and distributed social network. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Kosba, A. Miller, E. Shi, Z. Wen, and C. Papamanthou. Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. University of Maryland and Cornell University, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. Linder. Decryption contract enforcement tool (decent): A practical alternative to government decryption backdoors.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Manyika, M. Chui, B. Brown, J. Bughin, R. Dobbs, C. Roxburgh, and A. H. Byers. Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. D. Norberhuis. MultiChain: A cybercurrency for cooperation. PhD thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. R. Pass et al. Micropayments for decentralized currencies. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 207--218. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Peck. The bitcoin arms race is on! IEEE Spectrum, 6(50), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. G. W. Peters and E. Panayi. Understanding modern banking ledgers through blockchain technologies: Future of transaction processing and smart contracts on the internet of money. Available at SSRN 2692487, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. Rong and G. Zhao. System for protecting an encrypted information unit, Oct. 7 2014. US Patent 8,855,317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Swan. Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. P. Vasin. Blackcoins proof-of-stake protocol v2, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. G. Wood. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Paper, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. G. Zyskind, O. Nathan, and A. Pentland. Enigma: Decentralized computation platform with guaranteed privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03471, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Ushare: user controlled social media based on blockchain

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Conferences
                  IMCOM '17: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication
                  January 2017
                  746 pages
                  ISBN:9781450348881
                  DOI:10.1145/3022227

                  Copyright © 2017 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 5 January 2017

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  IMCOM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate113of366submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate213of621submissions,34%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader