bretthenderson
commented
4 years ago David Hyland-Wood Comment
I think we can quickly address the latter point (about highlighting what we don't know) with a sentence in the Abstract, a paragraph in the literature review, and a sentence in the Conclusions. Something like:
Abstract We briefly identify known gaps in our knowledge regarding the application of blockchains to space applications.
Literature Review We currently don't have a good appreciation for the amount of time, power, and heat rejection required to run blockchain wallets, validators, exchanges or light clients on the computational systems of current or near-future spacecraft. No such material was found by us in published literature. It would be helpful to conduct such a study to validate some of the assumptions discussed later in this paper.
Conclusion Known gaps in our knowledge of blockchain applicability were highlighted in the literature review.
saltiniroberto
prototypo
Reviewer 2 Comment Part of the reason why the paper felt like a note or a survey is that it does not really emphasize the typical hypothesis- or research-question-driven flow of a scientific paper. For example, the literature review is very thorough but it doesn’t make a good job of highlighting what we don’t currently know about blockhains for space applications, and how this paper addresses those knowledge gaps.