## 5 Results and Discussion  
These simulation processing and storage mechanisms, as well as the communication process, will be examined. The elliptic curve signature is 72 bytes long, the SHA-256 hash function is 32 bytes long, and the typical transaction is 77 bytes long. This paper only compared the average connection time between blockchain nodes in an IoT-only and a gateway-only configuration. A graph was produced based on the results received throughout the process. The number of nodes is represented on the \(X\)-axis, while the number of transactions cost (gas) is represented on the \(Y\)-axis. The value of the gas units is converted to eth. The price of gas is set at 33 Gwei. Furthermore, the cost of Gwei is calculated by multiplying the number of gas units by the current gas price. The total is then divided by the unit of single Ether, i.e., 1 Ether = 1,000,000,000 Gwei, between 6 and 12 s, counting the number of transactions. With the rapid evolution of the technological, economic, and regulatory landscapes, it is almost certain that modern blockchain platforms will undergo significant changes. As a result, the applications that rely on them must eventually migrate from one blockchain instance to another to remain competitive and secure. Additionally, data migration would be required to improve business processes, performance, cost efficiency, privacy, and regulatory compliance. The differences in data and smart contract representations, modes of hosting, transaction fees, and the need to preserve consistency, immutability, and data provenance, on the other hand, present unique challenges in database migration. The cost of sending a smart contract code to the Ethereum Blockchain for a smart network is referred to as the transaction cost [50; 51; 52]. It is determined by the size of the smart contract. The computational tasks performed by a smart contract determine its size. For example, if the smart contract contains a high number of computational tasks, it will be large in size and have a high transaction cost. Furthermore, the transaction cost includes the following components: transaction cost, contract deployment cost, and transaction data cost. Figures 7 and 8, respectively, depict the transaction cost of BIoT-device-only architecture and gateway-type BIoT architecture. The figure clearly shows that the transaction cost of BIoT-device-only architecture is significantly higher than that of gateway-type BIoT architecture. It manages the system's overall access control and has more functions than other smart contracts. As a result, the cost increases in proportion to the size of the smart contract. The transaction cost of the BIoT-device-only architecture is 160 gas units which are equal to 0.0528 eth. The transaction cost of gateway-type BIoT architecture is 80 gas units which are equal to 0.0000026 eth. The gateway-type BIoT architecture has a low cost because it only performs user registration operations and creates a user registration table. Figure 7: Transaction cost for BIoT-device-only type of architecture. The paper compares the performance of two security algorithms, ECC-CRT and SHA-256, in the proposed device-to-device BIoT architecture. The higher the network traffic, the higher the energy consumption, and vice versa. There are a vast number of parameters that need to be looked at during the IoT simulation, including low power management (LPM), the central processing unit (CPU), radio listening, and radio transmitting. The findings are compatible with the above-described graph, and the low-power mode is in honesty mode. Furthermore, the parameters for radio listening are also consistent. The LPM CPU radio listens and the radio transmits. These are different parameters for the processing calculation, and this parameter is used for the calculation of the average power of network notes. \[\text{Power(mW)}=\frac{\text{Energy(mJ)}}{\text{Time(s)}} \tag{6}\]  
When the key sizes for both algorithms vary, the following graph compares the power usage of the proposed ECC and SHA-256.