write 400–600 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments. This will be the foundation for future discussions by your classmates. Be substantive and cle
MN504 Networked Application Management Assignment 1 Page 6 of 6
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines | |
Trimester | T2 - 2018 |
Unit Code | MN504 |
Unit Title | Networked Application Management |
Assessment Type | Individual Assignment |
Assessment Title | Cryptocurrency giants-Ethereum and Bitcoin |
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping) | The purpose of this assignment is to develop skills of analysing critically, and problem solving in regard to Networked Application Management (NAM). Students will be able to complete the following ULOs:
|
Weight | 10% |
Total Marks | 50 |
Word limit | 1500 - 2000 |
Due Date | 31/08/2018 11:55PM (Friday Week 7) |
Submission Guidelines |
|
Extension | If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly to the School's Administration Officer, in Melbourne on Level 6 or in Sydney on Level 7. You must submit this application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment. Further information is available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policiesprocedures-and-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment |
Academic Misconduct
| Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policiesprocedures-and-guidelines/Plagiarism-Academic-Misconduct-PolicyProcedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description. |
Assignment Description
A report containing a complete discussion and analysis of the given topic in the required context needs to be submitted on Moodle. The report must have following parts:
Part 1: Ethereum & Bitcoin
The students explore Ethereum & Bitcoin by reviewing the literature on the internet as papers, book chapters, and independent scholarly reports by experts, and research based videos. Students participating in the PBL are taught how to do the critical thinking for review of literature. At least three articles related to technology supporting Ethereum need to be analysed in depth by discussing the overall contribution, scope and limitations of each research work. Following aspects related to Ethereum must be discussed:
Architecture
Features
Challenges
Part 2: Applications of Bitcoin
Students need to discuss at least one application in EACH of the following domains supported by Bitcoin:
Token Systems
Decentralised file storage
Part 3: Compare Ethereum and Bitcoin
Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two biggest giants of the cryptocurrency world. Bitcoin (BTC) was the first coin and Ethereum (ETH) followed a few years later. Discuss in detail similarities and differences between the two.
Moodle Submission
All assignments should be submitted via Moodle and the similarity reports should be looked at carefully before the due-date, as students should make sure that there is no plagiarism of any type.
Marking Criteria
Section to be included in the report |
Description of the section |
Marks |
Introduction |
Introduction of Ethereum v/s Bitcoin in terms of use and popularity. Also the structure of the assignment should be discussed.
|
2 |
Part 1 |
Discussion of following aspects related to Ethereum:
|
8+ 6+ 6 =20 |
Part 2 |
Analyse and discuss at least one application EACH supported by Bitcoin in the following domains:
There has to be at least 2-3 references for each application.
|
10* 2 =20 |
Part 3
| Differences and Similarities between Ethereum & Bitcoin are to be discussed and analysed |
4 |
Conclusion |
Draw a conclusion of the report with complete summary of all sections
|
2 |
Reference style |
Follow IEEE reference style, in text citation and complete reference list.
|
2 |
|
Total
|
50 |
Marking Rubric for Assignment #1: Total Marks 50
Grade Mark | HD 40-50 | DI 35-39 | CR 30-34 | P 25-29 | Fail <25 |
Excellent | Very Good | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | |
Introduction /2 | All salient features contributing to the popularity of Ethereum & Bitcoin are discussed and ability to think critically is demonstrated | Some relevant features are soundly analysed. | General features are analysed. | Some relevant features are briefly presented. | This is not relevant to the assignment topic. |
Part 1 /20 | Demonstrated excellent ability to analyse critically and sourced reference material | Demonstrated excellent ability to analyse critically but did not source reference material appropriately | Demonstrated some ability to analyse critically and sourced reference material appropriately | Demonstrated little ability to analyse critically and did not source reference material appropriately | Did not demonstrate ability to analyse critically and did not source reference material appropriately |
Part 2 /20 | Findings are clearly linked and well justified. Scope and limitations are provided exceptionally well | Findings are clearly linked and justified. Scope and limitations are provided | Findings are linked and convincing. Some scope and limitations are provided | Findings are not linked and unjustified | Findings are not available |
Part 3 /4 | All socio-technical aspects are discussed exceptionally well | Very good discussion of most sociotechnical aspects | Good discussion of some sociotechnical aspects | Discussion of few sociotechnical aspects | Unsatisfactory discussion of few sociotechnical aspects. |
Conclusion /2 | Logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments | Consistent, logical and convincing | Mostly consistent logical and convincing | Adequate cohesion and conviction | Argument is confused and disjointed |
Reference style /2 | Clear styles with excellent source of references. | Clear referencing style | Generally good referencing style | Sometimes clear referencing style | Lacks consistency with many errors |
Prepared by: Dr Lincy Jim Moderated by: Dr Sanjeeb Shrestha July 2018