Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Towards Safer Smart Contracts: A Survey of Languages and Verification Methods

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1809.09805 v4 pith:VNNIFYSJ submitted 2018-09-26 cs.CR

classification cs.CR
keywords smartverificationcontractslanguagesmethodscontractdistributedefforts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With a market capitalisation of over USD 205 billion in just under ten years, public distributed ledgers have experienced significant adoption. Apart from novel consensus mechanisms, their success is also accountable to smart contracts. These programs allow distrusting parties to enter agreements that are executed autonomously. However, implementation issues in smart contracts caused severe losses to the users of such contracts. Significant efforts are taken to improve their security by introducing new programming languages and advance verification methods. We provide a survey of those efforts in two parts. First, we introduce several smart contract languages focussing on security features. To that end, we present an overview concerning paradigm, type, instruction set, semantics, and metering. Second, we examine verification tools and methods for smart contract and distributed ledgers. Accordingly, we introduce their verification approach, level of automation, coverage, and supported languages. Last, we present future research directions including formal semantics, verified compilers, and automated verification.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ZKP Security Tools and Verification: Coverage, Effectiveness, Adoption, and Challenges

    cs.CR 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Six Circom-focused ZKP tools detect 45.7% of 70 real bugs in isolation but only 19.6% on full codebases; formal verification is mostly constraint-soundness, and practitioners still run human-led workflows with heavy LLM use.

Pith tools