# PINE: Post-Quantum Based Incentive Technique for Non-Cooperating Nodes in Internet of Everything
## 3 Proposed Approach--PINE Protocol
### Protocol Design
#### 3.3.2 Operational Phase
_InTab_ containing the attributes _EnergyStatus_, _PacketForwardCount_, _PacketDropCount_, _Timestamp_, and _Incentive_. Moreover, the timestamp in the protocol ensures that replay attacks are avoided during session execution [36; 37; 38]. Furthermore, such packet-dropping nodes are penalized and tagged as non-cooperative \(NC_{j}\). Node \(S\) then resends the packet \(Enc_{R}\) to the next-best hop by analyzing the _InTab_, hence promoting the lowest selection chances of the \(NC_{j}\) nodes to maintain network stability. * It is worth mentioning that nodes can sometimes tend to drop packets for many unaddressed reasons, one of which can be a blackhole attack. If a node selfishly drops a packet, the node incurs an incentive deduction; however, this does not means that the node cannot participate in the route discovery or maintenance phases in the upcoming sessions, whereas the \(PINE\) protocol allows non-cooperative nodes \(NC_{j}\) to behave as cooperative nodes \(C_{j}\) in the network by providing incentives. If a node repeatedly drops packets and the calculated incentive is less than the set threshold incentive, the \(PINE\) protocol takes the necessary action by completely ignoring such nodes in subsequent sessions. Note: Different color representation in the figure are as follows: (1) Red color: Failed verification/communication interruption or process, (2) Green color: Successful verification/uninterrupted communication or process, (3) Blue color: Active overhearing by the nearby nodes, (4) Brown color: Next node selection. ## 4 Evaluation and Analysis

* This protocol employs three different scripts written in Python language, namely, sender, forwarding node, and receiver scripts. The sender and receiver scripts are used for executing sender and receiver nodes, whereas the forwarding node script focuses on simulating the relay nodes. Furthermore, our analysis here was conducted by keeping multiple forwarding node scripts to simulate and achieve the results. * The protocol was successfully simulated for up to 50 nodes (excluding nodes \(S\) and \(R\)) considering an energy value of 10,000-20,000 Joules (J) for each node. This protocol has the potential to work for >20,000 J by substantially varying the respective device power and time capability, as it is known that _Energy = Power (W)
* Time (t)_. Practically,

Figure 5: Selfish node—blackhole attack. on average the protocol considers a device's energy capacity of up to 20,000 J, as it provides an experimental simulation to consider even a basic device with computing power. Furthermore, the protocol considers a node to be dead if _Energy_ < 100 J, and thus communication may not be possible with such nodes. * The evaluation and analysis of the model was conducted in the below-mentioned simulation environment (refer to Table 2). ### Comparison of Execution Time, Memory Consumption, and Average Residual Energy with Message Size

* For this analysis, the protocol evaluated the results by varying the Message Size (in Characters) to find the effect on the Execution Time (in Seconds) per device Memory Consumption (in Megabytes) and Average Residual Energy (in Joules). * The proposed protocol evaluated the results by keeping the session size or communication cycles to a constant value of 100 in order to obtain realistic observations, considering a number of forwarding nodes up to 30. * The results were computed by considering up to 30 forwarding nodes to justify the energy consumption with respect to the number of nodes, as it is understood that as the number of nodes in the network increases the energy consumption increases as well, resulting in additional dead nodes. The results here are thus shown for up to 30 forwarding nodes considering 10,000 J for each node. * In Table 3 and Figure 6, it can be observed that as the message size increases the protocol execution time increases with it when considering the number of forwarding nodes to be 30.