Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

A Full-History Network Dataset for BTC Asset Decentralization Profiling

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Full Bitcoin history maps asset decentralization into three phases

desk verdict A dataset paper with no accessible dataset and an unreproducible network-centrality analysis; only the asset-distribution part has real descriptive value, and the forecasting overclaim is contradicted by the paper's own table. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13603 v1 pith:4B6SAKZQ submitted 2024-11-19 q-fin.ST cs.SI

Ling Cheng , Qian Shao , Fengzhu Zeng , Feida Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.STcs.SI
keywords BitcointransactionnetworkdecentralizationblockchaindatasetcentralitiesHerfindahl-HirschmanIndextimeseriesforecastingUTXO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that a complete Bitcoin transaction-network dataset spanning from the genesis block in January 2009 through block 845,651 in May 2024, with roughly 1.4 billion addresses and 1 billion transactions, can support a systematic longitudinal profile of Bitcoin's asset decentralization. Using this dataset, the authors report that Bitcoin's ownership history separates into three phases: rapid decentralization during 2009-2010, a re-centralization period from early 2010 to early 2012, and a long phase of stable top-holder shares from 2012 to the present. They also introduce several decentralization metrics, including centrality dispersion, an area-based asset-distribution degree, ranking stability measures, and a Herfindahl-Hirschman-based concentration index, and show that adding these network features to forecasting models reduces prediction error for transaction fees and MVRV-Z scores. The payoff for a reader is a shared longitudinal resource and a measurable answer to the question of whether the world's largest cryptocurrency has actually become more decentralized over time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the directed graph built from Bitcoin transactions. Because the blockchain records only which addresses appear as inputs and which as outputs, the paper creates an edge from every input address to every output address of each transaction, with weights proportional to output values; this graph is then used to compute betweenness, closeness, in-degree, and PageRank for 1.4 billion addresses. The other central mechanism is the daily top-5000 ranking list, which feeds an area-based decentralization degree (comparing the real cumulative BTC distribution against an ideal equal distribution), Spearman and retention-rate measures of ranking stability, and a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index computed both per address and per detected community. The downstream experiments feed these features into transformer and recurrent forecasting models.

What would settle it

Recompute the daily top-5000 concentration curves and phase boundaries using only single-input-single-output transactions or a standard change-address heuristic; if the phase boundaries at February 2010 and March 2012 disappear or shift substantially, the three-phase decentralization history is an artifact of the all-to-all edge construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that decentralization is not monotonic in Bitcoin's history: the network was most evenly distributed in its first year, then concentrated sharply around the Mt. Gox era, and has since plateaued into a stable regime in which the top-5000 addresses hold a roughly constant share of total supply. The evidence comes from daily top-5000 rankings, cumulative distribution curves, and four centrality measures computed on the full transaction graph. The authors further find that address-level concentration (treating each address as an independent holder) is consistently low, while entity-level concentration (clustering addresses into communities) shows a pronounced rise and fall, implying that large players control many addresses rather than one dominant address. These phase boundaries align across the asset-distribution plots and the proposed decentralization degree, which the authors take as mutual support for the three-phase reading.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis depends on the assumption that drawing an edge from every input address to every output address of each transaction faithfully represents how Bitcoin flows, even though the blockchain does not record which input paid which output.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dataset can serve as a common longitudinal benchmark, letting future studies compare network properties over Bitcoin's full history instead of on snapshots.
  • The three-phase history implies that Bitcoin's ownership concentration has been roughly stable since 2012, so recent price movements occur without major redistribution among top addresses.
  • Adding decentralization and ranking-stability features consistently lowers forecast error for transaction fees and MVRV-Z across several models, supporting the view that network structure carries financial signal.
  • The HHI-based distinction between address-level and entity-level concentration shows that measured decentralization depends heavily on how addresses are grouped into owners.
  • The authors claim the framework transfers to other blockchain assets, enabling cross-chain comparisons of decentralization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the all-to-all edge inference can create spurious connections in multi-input transactions, re-running the three-phase analysis on single-input transactions or with change-address heuristics is a direct robustness check the paper does not report.
  • The forecasting gains are correlational; a natural extension is to test whether the proposed decentralization degrees lead or lag price and fee regimes, which would indicate whether they carry predictive rather than descriptive information.
  • The area-based decentralization degree could be extended to arbitrary wealth quantiles or to other cryptocurrencies, allowing direct cross-asset comparisons of how quickly top-holder shares stabilize.
  • The paper's phase boundaries (early 2010 and early 2012) coincide with known exchange events, but the causal link is not established; an intervention-style analysis around those dates could test whether specific events caused the shifts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the construction of a Bitcoin transaction network dataset spanning from the genesis block to block 845,652 and uses it to profile Bitcoin's decentralization through centrality metrics, asset-distribution concentration, ranking-stability measures, and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) calculations. It further evaluates whether adding these network/decentralization features improves transaction-fee and MVRV-Z forecasting. The paper's three headline claims are that this is the first full-history Bitcoin transaction network dataset, that Bitcoin's decentralization evolved in three distinct phases, and that network properties and decentralization metrics consistently improve prediction accuracy. The raw-data statistics are substantial (about 1.41 billion addresses and 1.01 billion transactions), but the dataset itself is not actually made available, the methodology for computing centrality metrics at this scale is not specified, and the forecasting claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table V.

Significance. If the dataset were supplied and the methodology made reproducible, this could be a genuinely useful longitudinal resource for Bitcoin research: the full-history extraction, the daily top-5000 balance snapshots, the ranking-stability measures, and the attempt to tie decentralization to downstream financial forecasting are all potentially valuable. The paper also deserves credit for addressing decentralization from a network perspective rather than only from mining data. However, in the submitted form the central artifact is unavailable, the network measures cannot be reproduced or validated, and one of the headline conclusions is internally inconsistent. The contribution is therefore not yet verifiable, and the significance of the claimed findings cannot be assessed independently.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The paper's central contribution is a 'full-history BTC transaction network dataset,' but the only access point is the placeholder text 'dataset link' in the abstract. No URL, DOI, checksum, file schema, or repository instructions are provided anywhere in the manuscript. Without a persistent link and a data description, none of the network-property tables, centrality plots, or downstream experiments can be independently verified. A dataset paper must provide a working access mechanism and a clear description of the data format.
  2. [Section III-A and Fig. 1] The manuscript reports betweenness, closeness, in-degree, and PageRank on a graph with 1,411,482,182 nodes, but it gives no algorithm or approximation for computing these metrics at this scale. Exact betweenness and closeness are computationally infeasible on such a graph, and the paper states neither sampling fractions, number of PageRank iterations, nor the software implementation. Readers cannot reproduce Fig. 1 or the subsequent dispersion-rate discussion. The authors should specify the exact computation pipeline, including whether centrality is computed on the full graph or on per-window subgraphs, and should make the code available.
  3. [Section II-C and Section VI] The N×M edge-inference rule creates a complete directed bipartite connection between every input address and every output address of each transaction. For transactions involving exchanges, mixing services, or other multi-party payments, this can generate very dense cliques that do not correspond to any actual value flow. Because all centrality results in Fig. 1, the community detection in Section VI, and the HHI computations in Fig. 5 are based on this inferred graph, the reported decentralization phases may be artifacts of the edge-inference heuristic. The paper needs to justify this construction with robustness checks, such as comparing against subgraphs that exclude multi-input/multi-output transactions or using an amount-proportional edge-elimination heuristic, and should explicitly discuss the known limitations of all-to-all input-output edges.
  4. [Section VII-B, Tables III and V] The text states that adding Asset and Rank features 'improves the performance of models' and that incorporating both 'consistently enhances prediction accuracy across all models.' Table V contradicts this claim: for Reformer, the MSE worsens from 0.252 with Centrality only to 0.437 with Centrality+Asset, and to 0.308 with Centrality+Asset+Rank; for Transformer, Centrality+Rank (0.297) is worse than Centrality only (0.283). The conclusion must be reworded to identify the specific models and settings in which each feature combination helps, and the blanket 'consistently enhances' claim should be removed or replaced by a proper statistical comparison of the relevant configurations.
  5. [Section IV-A and Section IV-B] The three phases in Section IV-A are defined by visual inspection of the top-x proportion curves in Fig. 2, and the decentralization degree D_A in Section IV-B is computed from the same asset-distribution curves. The statement in Section IV-B that D_A's patterns 'align well with the boundaries of the three phases' is therefore not an independent validation of either the phase boundaries or the definition of D_A. An objective procedure, such as changepoint detection on the concentration series with confidence intervals, is needed if the three-phase narrative is to be load-bearing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table I] The abstract dates the genesis block as '1st March, 2009,' but Table I gives the start date as 01-03-2009 and the Bitcoin genesis block is conventionally dated January 3, 2009; the paper should use the correct date consistently.
  2. [Abstract and Section II-B] The block count is inconsistent: the abstract refers to the '845651-th block,' while Section II-B and Table I refer to block-845,652 and 'Number of blocks 845,652.' Clarify whether the last included block is 845,651 or 845,652.
  3. [Section VII] The baseline list in Section VII does not include Informer, but Informer appears in Tables II, III, IV, and V. Add Informer to the baseline descriptions or explain why it is treated separately.
  4. [Section VI, Eq. (2)] The expression 'normalized(HHI A1/A2)' in Eq. (2) is not defined. Specify the normalization procedure for HHI under the address-as-entity (A1) and community-clustering (A2) approaches so that D_HHI is computable.
  5. [Figures 3 and 4] The lower panels of Figures 3 and 4 show breakdowns by top-N group, but the legends are not described in the captions. Add explicit caption text indicating the interval lengths and top-N groups represented in each panel.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The dataset and forecasting contributions are self-contained; only the phase/D_A validation is a self-consistency check, not independent confirmation.

  1. self definitional [Section IV-A (three-phase identification) and Section IV-B (D_A definition and Fig. 2 right subplot)]
    "The distinct patterns exhibited by different segments of the curve align well with the boundaries of the three phases, a strong support for our definition, and characterizations of decentralization degree, of the three phases from another perspective."

    The three phases are defined in Section IV-A from the same top-x BTC proportion curves (criteria C1 and C2), and D_A is defined in Section IV-B as the area between the cumulative top-x distribution and the ideal equal line. Since D_A is an integral transform of the same top-x share data used to set the phase boundaries, the 'alignment' of D_A's segments with those boundaries is a self-consistency check: the validating curve is derived from the very curves that defined the phases. It therefore cannot provide independent support for the three-phase characterization, though the phase narrative itself is an empirical reading of the data.

full rationale

The paper's main contributions are a full-history transaction dataset and downstream forecasting experiments. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: references [7] and [8] are external and only support the standard N×M edge-inference convention, not an author-specific uniqueness claim. The forecasting targets (transaction fee, MVRV-Z) are independent of the decentralization metric definitions, so the reported MSE improvements are not forced by construction even if significance testing is absent. The only circular step is the claim that the D_A curve supports the three phases: the phases and D_A are both computed from the same daily top-address balance data, making the agreement a tautological consistency check rather than an independent validation. Because this does not undermine the dataset's existence or the downstream application results, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the arbitrary top-5000 cutoff, hand-chosen phase boundaries, unstated HHI normalization, and the inferred graph structure. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond the proposed decentralization metrics, which are transformations of standard measures.

free parameters (4)
  • Top-5000 cutoff
    The analysis focuses on the top 5000 addresses by balance, chosen by hand as representing the majority of assets; the threshold is not derived from any criterion.
  • Phase boundaries = Jan 9 2009, Feb 10 2010, Mar 24 2012
    The boundaries of the three decentralization phases are selected by visual inspection of the cumulative distribution curves in Fig. 2, not by a statistical breakpoint method.
  • Ranking stability intervals = 1, 5, 10, 50, 100 days
    The day intervals for Spearman and retention analyses are chosen by hand without justification.
  • HHI normalization = unspecified
    D_HHI = 1 - normalized(HHI) is defined in Eqn (2), but the normalization function is never specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The complete-bipartite edge inference maps each input to each output of a transaction.
    Section II-C: Bitcoin does not record which input funds which output; the authors create N x M directed edges per transaction and assign weights proportionally to outputs, which can create spurious links.
  • domain assumption Addresses can be treated as nodes and proxies for asset holders.
    The paper uses address-level analysis and notes in the introduction that this may introduce bias because one entity can control many addresses.
  • domain assumption Exact centrality metrics are computable on a graph of 1.4 billion addresses.
    Section III computes betweenness, closeness, and PageRank on the full graph but does not describe approximation schemes; exact betweenness on such a graph is computationally prohibitive.
  • standard math Standard definitions of HHI, Spearman coefficient, and Gini-like area are used.
    These are standard measures; used in Sections IV, V, VI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Full-History Network Dataset for BTC Asset Decentralization Profiling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4B6SAKZQ

@misc{pith2026241113603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Full-History Network Dataset for BTC Asset Decentralization Profiling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4B6SAKZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13603}
}
read the original abstract

Since its advent in 2009, Bitcoin (BTC) has garnered increasing attention from both academia and industry. However, due to the massive transaction volume, no systematic study has quantitatively measured the asset decentralization degree specifically from a network perspective. In this paper, by conducting a thorough analysis of the BTC transaction network, we first address the significant gap in the availability of full-history BTC graph and network property dataset, which spans over 15 years from the genesis block (1st March, 2009) to the 845651-th block (29, May 2024). We then present the first systematic investigation to profile BTC's asset decentralization and design several decentralization degrees for quantification. Through extensive experiments, we emphasize the significant role of network properties and our network-based decentralization degree in enhancing Bitcoin analysis. Our findings demonstrate the importance of our comprehensive dataset and analysis in advancing research on Bitcoin's transaction dynamics and decentralization, providing valuable insights into the network's structure and its implications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of centrality and dispersion rate of four key centrality metrics: (a) Betweenness, (b) Closeness, (c) In-Degree, and (d) PageRank. These [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left plot illustrates the proportion of total Bitcoins held by the top- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spearman coefficient analysis of BTC top-ranking addresses. (1) Spearman coefficients for different day intervals for top-5000 addresses. (2) Breakdown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Retention rate analysis of BTC top-ranking addresses: (1) Retention rates for different day intervals for top-5000 addresses. (2) Breakdown of retention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: HHI decentralization degree, with independent entities (orange) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of 14-day transaction fee predictions based on different combinations of features, using historical 14-day data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of 30-day MVRV-Z predictions based on different combinations of features, using historical 30-day data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,

    S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” Manubot, Tech. Rep., 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Trend of centralization in bitcoin’s distributed network,

    A. Beikverdi and J. Song, “Trend of centralization in bitcoin’s distributed network,” in 2015 IEEE/ACIS 16th SNPD . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–6

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    An information entropy method to quantify the degrees of decentralization for blockchain systems,

    K. Wu, B. Peng, H. Xie, and Z. Huang, “An information entropy method to quantify the degrees of decentralization for blockchain systems,” in ICEIEC ’19 . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    A coefficient of variation method to measure the extents of decentralization for bitcoin and ethereum networks

    K. Wu, B. Peng, H. Xie, and S. Zhan, “A coefficient of variation method to measure the extents of decentralization for bitcoin and ethereum networks.” IJ Network Security , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 191–200, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Comparison of Decentralization in DPoS and PoW Blockchains

    C. Li and B. Palanisamy, “Comparison of decentralization in dpos and pow blockchains,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.02082 , 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Blocksci: Design and applications of a blockchain analysis platform,

    H. Kalodner, M. M ¨oser, K. Lee, S. Goldfeder, M. Plattner, A. Chator, and A. Narayanan, “Blocksci: Design and applications of a blockchain analysis platform,” in {USENIX} Security 20 , 2020, pp. 2721–2738

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Blockchain: A graph primer,

    C. G. Akcora, Y . R. Gel, and M. Kantarcioglu, “Blockchain: A graph primer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.08749 , 2017

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Do the rich get richer? an empirical analysis of the bitcoin transaction network,

    D. Kondor, M. P ´osfai, I. Csabai, and G. Vattay, “Do the rich get richer? an empirical analysis of the bitcoin transaction network,” PloS one , vol. 9, no. 2, p. e86197, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Identifying systemically important financial institutions: a network approach,

    P. R. Kaltwasser and A. Spelta, “Identifying systemically important financial institutions: a network approach,” Computational Management Science, vol. 16, no. 1-2, pp. 155–185, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Trade credit, financial intermediary development, and industry growth,

    R. Fisman and I. Love, “Trade credit, financial intermediary development, and industry growth,” The Journal of Finance , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 353–374, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/ stable/3094490

    2003

  3. [11]

    How unstable are complex financial systems? analyzing an inter-bank network of credit relations,

    S. Sinha, M. Thess, and S. Markose, “How unstable are complex financial systems? analyzing an inter-bank network of credit relations,” in Econophysics of Systemic Risk and Network Dynamics . Springer, 2013, pp. 59–76

    2013

  4. [12]

    Similarities and differences between the cr and hhi as an indicator of market concentration and market power,

    I. Pavic, F. Galetic, and D. Piplica, “Similarities and differences between the cr and hhi as an indicator of market concentration and market power,” Journal of Economics, Management and Trade , pp. 1–8, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Concentration in us labor markets: Evidence from online vacancy data,

    J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, and B. Taska, “Concentration in us labor markets: Evidence from online vacancy data,” Labour Economics, vol. 66, p. 101886, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,

    Y . Liu, T. Hu, H. Zhang, H. Wu, S. Wang, L. Ma, and M. Long, “itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06625 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness,

    T. Dao, D. Fu, S. Ermon, A. Rudra, and C. R ´e, “Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 16 344–16 359, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Flowformer: Linearizing transformers with conservation flows,

    H. Wu, J. Wu, J. Xu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Flowformer: Linearizing transformers with conservation flows,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 24 226–24 242

    2022

  9. [17]

    Reformer: The efficient trans- former,

    N. Kitaev, L. Kaiser, and A. Levskaya, “Reformer: The efficient trans- former,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation,

    K. Cho, “Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Computation MIT- Press, 1997

    1997

  13. [21]

    SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,

    J. Leskovec and A. Krevl, “SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,” http://snap.stanford.edu/data, Jun. 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Anti-money laundering in bitcoin: Experimenting with graph convolutional networks for financial foren- sics,

    M. Weber, G. Domeniconi, J. Chen, D. K. I. Weidele, C. Bellei, T. Robinson, and C. E. Leiserson, “Anti-money laundering in bitcoin: Experimenting with graph convolutional networks for financial foren- sics,” 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Predicting the price of bitcoin by the most frequent edges of its transaction network,

    M. T. Kurbucz, “Predicting the price of bitcoin by the most frequent edges of its transaction network,” Economics Letters , vol. 184, p. 108655, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0165176519303271

    2019

  16. [24]

    Bitcoin risk modeling with blockchain graphs,

    C. G. Akcora, M. F. Dixon, Y . R. Gel, and M. Kantarcioglu, “Bitcoin risk modeling with blockchain graphs,” Economics Letters , vol. 173, pp. 138–142, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0165176518302994

    2018

  17. [25]

    Analysis of cryptocurrency transactions from a network perspective: An overview,

    J. Wu, J. Liu, Y . Zhao, and Z. Zheng, “Analysis of cryptocurrency transactions from a network perspective: An overview,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications , vol. 190, p. 103139, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Blockchain data mining with graph learning: A survey,

    Y . Qi, J. Wu, H. Xu, and M. Guizani, “Blockchain data mining with graph learning: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    On scaling decentralized blockchains,

    K. Croman, C. Decker, I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, A. Juels, A. Kosba, A. Miller, P. Saxena, E. Shi, E. G. Sirer et al., “On scaling decentralized blockchains,” in FC ’16 . Springer, 2016, pp. 106–125

    2016

  20. [28]

    De- centralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks,

    A. E. Gencer, S. Basu, I. Eyal, R. Van Renesse, and E. G. Sirer, “De- centralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks,” in FC ’18. Springer, 2018, pp. 439–457

    2018

  21. [29]

    Bitcoin and the myth of decentralization: Socio-technical proposals for restoring network integrity,

    A. Ekblaw, C. Barabas, J. Harvey-Buschel, and A. Lippman, “Bitcoin and the myth of decentralization: Socio-technical proposals for restoring network integrity,” in 2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on F oun- dations and Applications of Self* Systems (F AS* W) . IEEE, 2016,...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Making smart contracts smarter,

    L. Luu, D.-H. Chu, H. Olickel, P. Saxena, and A. Hobor, “Making smart contracts smarter,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security , 2016, pp. 254–269

    2016

  23. [31]

    Decentral- ized consensus for edge-centric internet of things: A review, taxonomy, and research issues,

    K. Yeow, A. Gani, R. W. Ahmad, J. J. Rodrigues, and K. Ko, “Decentral- ized consensus for edge-centric internet of things: A review, taxonomy, and research issues,” IEEE Access , vol. 6, pp. 1513–1524, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Securing virtual machine orches- tration with blockchains,

    N. Bozic, G. Pujolle, and S. Secci, “Securing virtual machine orches- tration with blockchains,” in CSNet ’17 . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  25. [33]

    Peer to peer for privacy and decentralization in the internet of things,

    M. Conoscenti, A. Vetr `o, and J. C. D. Martin, “Peer to peer for privacy and decentralization in the internet of things,” in ICSE ’17, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 20-28, 2017 - Companion V olume . IEEE Computer Society, 2017, pp. 288–290

    2017

  26. [34]

    Is bitcoin a decentralized currency?

    A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, V . Capkun, and S. Capkun, “Is bitcoin a decentralized currency?” IEEE security & privacy , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 54–60, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Decentralization is vulnerable under the gap game,

    Y . Liu, J. Ke, Q. Xu, H. Jiang, and H. Wang, “Decentralization is vulnerable under the gap game,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 90 999–91 008, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies,

    J. Bonneau, A. Miller, J. Clark, A. Narayanan, J. A. Kroll, and E. W. Felten, “Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies,” in 2015 IEEE symposium on security and privacy . IEEE, 2015, pp. 104–121

    2015

  29. [37]

    Pervasive decentralisation of digital infrastructures: a frame- work for blockchain enabled system and use case analysis,

    F. Glaser, “Pervasive decentralisation of digital infrastructures: a frame- work for blockchain enabled system and use case analysis,” in Proceed- ings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences , 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining strategy management in blockchain networks,

    W. Wang, D. T. Hoang, P. Hu, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, P. Wang, Y . Wen, and D. I. Kim, “A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining strategy management in blockchain networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 22 328– 22 370, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Blockchain mining games with pay forward,

    E. Koutsoupias, P. Lazos, F. Ogunlana, and P. Serafino, “Blockchain mining games with pay forward,” in The World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 13-17, 2019 . ACM, 2019, pp. 917–927

    2019

  32. [40]

    Quantifying decentralization,

    B. S. Srinivasan and L. Leland, “Quantifying decentralization,” 21. co , 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance,

    R. B ¨ohme, N. Christin, B. Edelman, and T. Moore, “Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance,” Journal of economic Perspectives , vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 213–38, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum: Towards healthier blockchain technology,

    W. Chen, Z. Zheng, J. Cui, E. C. H. Ngai, P. Zheng, and Y . Zhou, “Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum: Towards healthier blockchain technology,” in WWW ’18, Lyon, France, April 23-27, 2018 . ACM, 2018, pp. 1409–1418

    2018

  35. [43]

    Quantitative analysis of the full bitcoin transaction graph,

    D. Ron and A. Shamir, “Quantitative analysis of the full bitcoin transaction graph,” in FC ’13 . Springer, 2013, pp. 6–24

    2013

  36. [44]

    Empirical analysis of crypto curren- cies,

    M. K. Popuri and M. H. Gunes, “Empirical analysis of crypto curren- cies,” in Complex Networks VII . Springer, 2016, pp. 281–292

    2016

  37. [45]

    Measurements, analyses, and insights on the entire ethereum blockchain network,

    X. T. Lee, A. Khan, S. S. Gupta, Y . H. Ong, and X. Liu, “Measurements, analyses, and insights on the entire ethereum blockchain network,” in WWW ’20, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020 . ACM / IW3C2, 2020, pp. 155–166

    2020

  38. [46]

    The bow tie structure of the bitcoin users graph,

    D. D. F. Maesa, A. Marino, and L. Ricci, “The bow tie structure of the bitcoin users graph,” Applied Network Science , vol. 4, no. 1, p. 56, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.