Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

How Reliable Is the Multi-Input Heuristic for Bitcoin Address Clustering in Law Enforcement Contexts?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The multi-input heuristic for Bitcoin address clustering looks strong only on labeled addresses; full-cluster and entity-level metrics show precision and recall collapse and some services fail almost completely.

desk verdict Solid multi-metric MIH evaluation on rare legal ground truth; the pairwise-vs-full-cluster gap and entity failures are real and carefully scoped. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07414 v2 pith:6R7OJN6E submitted 2026-07-08 cs.CR

Leopold Müller , Jana Elsner , Thomas Niedermayer , Bernhard Haslhofer , Thomas Goger , Niklas Kühl , Christian Rückert , (2) Iknaio Cryptoasset Analytics
show 2 more authors
(3) Complexity Science Hub (4) Bavarian Central Office for the Prosecution of Cybercrime)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords cryptocurrencyforensicsmulti-inputheuristicaddressclusteringevaluationBitcoinblockchainlawenforcement
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

This paper tests the multi-input heuristic (MIH)—the standard rule that groups all input addresses of a Bitcoin transaction as belonging to one controller—against real address-to-entity ground truth obtained from European crypto-asset service providers under legal reporting duties. On the labeled addresses alone the method looks solid: it never merges different reported services and recovers same-service pairs with recall 0.71. Once the full clusters are examined, however, precision and recall fall to 0.36 and 0.44 because unlabeled addresses flood the clusters and many entities are only partially recovered. Performance also varies sharply by service: one large provider is reconstructed well while several others are recovered almost not at all. When these clusters are used to form criminal suspicion, seize assets, or support trial evidence, prosecutors and judges therefore need to treat reliability as both metric-dependent and entity-dependent.

What carries the argument

The multi-input heuristic (MIH), which transitively merges all co-spent input addresses into one cluster, scored by a unified re-implementation of nine metrics (pairwise and per-wallet precision/recall/F1, NMI, aNMI, AER) on legally mandated address-to-entity sets.

What would settle it

An independent ground-truth collection of comparable size and diversity that yields uniformly high per-wallet precision and recall for every entity (including the small and medium ones) under the same unfiltered multi-input pipeline would overturn the claim of metric- and entity-dependent unreliability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When the multi-input heuristic is evaluated on verified ground-truth mappings from seven European crypto service providers, pairwise metrics restricted to reported addresses give perfect precision and moderate recall, yet metrics that assess the full clusters yield precision 0.36 and recall 0.44; entity-level scores further show near-complete failure for several services. Dataset-level averages are dominated by a single large, well-clustered service, so the heuristic cannot be treated as uniformly reliable for investigative or evidentiary use.

Load-bearing premise

The seven European crypto service providers that must report their controlled addresses are representative enough of the entities law enforcement actually targets for the reliability conclusions to generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prosecutors and judges must treat MIH clusters as investigative leads rather than definitive attribution when forming suspicion or ordering preliminary asset seizure.
  • Future evaluations of clustering heuristics must report entity-level distributions, not only dataset averages, because averages can mask total failure on specific targets.
  • Pairwise scores computed only on labeled address pairs are insufficient for operational risk assessment; full-cluster purity measures are required.
  • Courts that admit clustering evidence under reliability standards need service-specific error figures rather than a single global score.
  • Combinations of MIH with other heuristics still require per-entity validation against independent ground truth before being used for seizure or trial.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Commercial black-box forensic tools that rely on MIH as a core component likely inherit the same label-restricted versus full-cluster gap, so claims of rare false positives may not survive full-cluster scrutiny.
  • Extending ground truth beyond regulated service providers to mixers, darknet markets or individual wallets would probably enlarge the observed failure modes.
  • A single law-enforcement-oriented metric that explicitly weights false-positive contamination more heavily for seizure decisions could replace the current heterogeneous suite of nine scores.
  • Because wallet software and multi-party spending patterns continue to evolve, the same evaluation framework should be re-run periodically on fresh ground-truth snapshots.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates the multi-input heuristic (MIH) for Bitcoin address clustering against ground-truth address-to-entity mappings from seven European crypto-asset service providers reported under statutory obligations (cutoff block 795357). It reimplements nine metrics from prior work (pairwise precision/recall/F1, per-wallet precision/recall/F1, NMI, aNMI, AER) in a reusable framework, applies them to the full unfiltered transaction corpus, and reports both dataset-level and entity-level results. On the labeled domain, pairwise precision is 1.0 and recall 0.71 (F1 0.83), but full-cluster per-wallet metrics fall to precision 0.36 / recall 0.44 / F1 0.27, with NMI 0.41, aNMI 0.36 and AER 0.51. Entity-level scores (Table 3) and leave-one-out analysis (Table 4) show that dataset-level pairwise performance is dominated by one large service and that several services are essentially unrecovered. The authors interpret these metric- and entity-dependent findings for three law-enforcement use cases under German and U.S. procedure and recommend treating MIH clusters as investigative leads rather than definitive attribution.

Significance. If the reported numbers hold, the paper supplies the first systematic MIH evaluation on recent, legally mandated, non-heuristic ground truth and unifies the fragmented metric landscape of prior studies. The reusable open evaluation framework, explicit separation of labeled-domain pairwise scores from full-cluster per-wallet scores, and entity-level / leave-one-out analyses are concrete methodological contributions that future clustering evaluations can reuse. The legal discussion usefully maps metric families onto asymmetric false-positive / false-negative costs in suspicion, seizure, and trial settings. Even with a small entity set, the demonstrated sensitivity of headline scores to metric choice and to a single dominant service is a result that both researchers and practitioners should take into account.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 3.1 and Figure 1: the ground-truth set comprises only seven services with extreme size imbalance (service 1 holds ~84% of labeled addresses; services 4, 6, 7 are near-singletons). Table 3 and Table 4 correctly expose the resulting heterogeneity and service-1 dominance, yet the abstract and conclusion still frame the findings as guidance for law-enforcement use of MIH in general. The Limitations section already flags the small entity set; the manuscript should more tightly scope every general claim (including the abstract) to “these seven CASPs” and treat broader LE recommendations as provisional until additional entity types are evaluated.
  2. Section 3.1 / 3.2: the authors deliberately leave CoinJoin / mixing transactions unfiltered “for comparability with prior work.” Because such transactions systematically violate the MIH co-spend assumption, the low per-wallet precision (0.36) and high AER for several services may partly reflect contamination rather than pure co-spend failure. A short sensitivity experiment that re-runs the nine metrics after a standard CoinJoin filter (or at least reports the fraction of multi-input transactions that match known CoinJoin patterns) would clarify how much of the reported degradation is attributable to known assumption violations versus genuine entity fragmentation.
minor comments (5)
  1. Table 2 caption and §4.1: the per-wallet F1 of 0.27 is correctly described as the macro-average of entity-level F1s, not the harmonic mean of the dataset-level precision and recall; a parenthetical reminder in the table itself would prevent misreading.
  2. Figure 1 uses a log-scale share axis and labels services only by index; adding absolute address counts (or a second panel) would make the imbalance immediately quantitative for readers.
  3. Section 5.2 is long relative to the empirical core; a short summary table mapping each legal use-case to the most relevant metric family (e.g., per-wallet precision for seizure risk) would improve accessibility for non-legal readers.
  4. Typographical / consistency: “absolutley” (p. 2), occasional spacing around decimals (“0 .71”), and mixed “forfeiture/ confiscation” hyphenation should be cleaned.
  5. Open-science statement: the anonymous repository link is welcome; once de-anonymized, a DOI or permanent archive citation would strengthen long-term reproducibility claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pure empirical evaluation of MIH against independent external ground truth with standard metrics.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical performance numbers obtained by applying the standard multi-input heuristic (defined independently of the ground truth) to the full Bitcoin transaction corpus and comparing the resulting clusters against address-to-entity mappings supplied by European CASPs under statutory reporting obligations. Those mappings are external to any clustering heuristic and are not fitted or generated by the authors. The nine metrics (pairwise precision/recall/F1, per-wallet precision/recall/F1, NMI, aNMI, AER) are reimplementations of previously published contingency and information-theoretic scores; none are defined in terms of the target results, and no free parameters are fitted to the evaluation data and then re-presented as predictions. Leave-one-out and entity-level breakdowns are simple recomputations on subsets of the same external labels. Self-citations appear only for background or prior metric definitions and are not load-bearing for the numerical claims. The derivation chain therefore contains no self-definitional steps, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz smuggled via self-citation. Score 0 is the correct outcome.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on standard clustering-evaluation mathematics, the classical multi-input co-spend assumption, and the domain premise that the seven reported CASP address sets are accurate and usable as ground truth. No free parameters are fitted; no new physical or cryptographic entities are invented.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption All input addresses of a standard Bitcoin transaction are controlled by the same entity (the multi-input heuristic assumption).
    Stated in Section 3.2 and used to construct the computed partition H; the paper evaluates rather than assumes its truth.
  • domain assumption The seven pseudonymized address sets reported by European CASPs under statutory obligations correctly and completely list the addresses controlled by those services as of block 795357.
    Section 3.1; this is the sole source of ground-truth labels R.
  • standard math Standard definitions of pairwise precision/recall/F1, per-wallet precision/recall/F1, NMI, aNMI and AER correctly quantify clustering quality for the intended legal use cases.
    Section 3.3 reimplements metrics from Cazabet, Nick and Gong without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Reliable Is the Multi-Input Heuristic for Bitcoin Address Clustering in Law Enforcement Contexts?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6R7OJN6E

@misc{pith2026260707414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Reliable Is the Multi-Input Heuristic for Bitcoin Address Clustering in Law Enforcement Contexts?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6R7OJN6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07414}
}
read the original abstract

Address clustering is an important technique in blockchain forensics, widely employed by law enforcement to trace illicit crypto asset flows. The multi-input heuristic (MIH), which clusters addresses potentially associated with the same entity, is the most widely used. Yet, despite its broad adoption, the MIH has rarely been evaluated against reliable ground truth data. We implement a reusable evaluation framework covering nine established metrics and apply it to ground truth address-to-entity mappings obtained directly from European crypto asset service providers under legally mandated reporting obligations. When evaluation is restricted to reported addresses, the MIH appears strong at dataset level: we observe no mergers between reported services and recover same-service address pairs with recall 0.71. However, this result is driven by one large service and ignores unlabeled addresses absorbed into full clusters. Metrics that assess the full clusters show substantially lower precision and recall (0.36 and 0.44), meaning that services are often only partially recovered or embedded in larger clusters. Entity-level results further reveal near-complete failures for some services. When MIH-based clusters are used to support criminal suspicion, preliminary seizure of crypto assets to secure later forfeiture/ confiscation, or as evidence in trial proceedings, prosecutors and judges must account for the heuristic's metric-dependent and entity-dependent reliability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07414 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of cluster formation under the MIH. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Relative size distribution of ground truth clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of computed cluster sizes (number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Elli Androulaki, Ghassan O Karame, Marc Roeschlin, Tobias Scherer, and Srdjan Capkun. 2013. Evaluating user privacy in bitcoin. InInternational conference on financial cryptography and data security. Springer, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 34–51

    2013

  2. [2]

    Louisa Bartel. 2024. Section 261 para. 95. InMünchener Kommentar zur Straf- prozessordnung: StPO(2. ed.), Hartmut Schneider (Ed.). C.H. Beck, München

    2024

  3. [3]

    Massimo Bartoletti, Barbara Pes, and Sergio Serusi. 2018. Data mining for detecting bitcoin ponzi schemes. In2018 crypto valley conference on blockchain technology (CVCBT). IEEE, Zug, Switzerland, 75–84

    2018

  4. [4]

    BGH. 1957. BGH Freie Beweiswürdigung. Räumlichkeit i.S. von § 306 StGB.Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW)(1957). https://beck- online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fnjw%2F1957%2Fcont% 2Fnjw.1957.1039.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-NJW-B-1957-S-1039-N-1 NJW Heft-28 (p.1025-1048) (12.07.1957)

    arXiv 1957

  5. [5]

    BGH. 1967. BGH Unbedingte Fahruntüchtigkeit eines Kraftfahrers bei 1,3% Blutalkoholgehalt.Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW)(1967). https://beck- online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fnjw%2F1967%2Fcont% 2Fnjw.1967.116.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-NJW-B-1967-S-116-N-1 NJW Heft-3 (p.99-128) (19.01.1967)

    1967

  6. [6]

    BGH. 1979. BGH Kennzeichnungsschutz einer Buchstabenkombina- tion.Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW)(1979). https://beck- online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fnjw%2F1979%2Fcont% 2Fnjw.1979.2311.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-NJW-B-1979-S-2311-N-1 NJW Heft-45 (p.2295-2328) (07.11.1979)

    arXiv 1979

  7. [7]

    BGH. 1982. BGH Anforderungen an ein Schriftsachverständigengutachten.Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW)(1982). https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath= bibdata/zeits/NJW/1982/cont/NJW.1982.2882.1.htm NJW Heft-51 (p.2841-2896) (22.12.1982)

    arXiv 1982

  8. [8]

    BGH. 1996. BGH Angaben im tatrichterlichen Urteil zur Identitätsfeststellung einer Betroffenen.Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW)(1996). https://beck- online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fnjw%2F1996%2Fcont% 2Fnjw.1996.1420.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-NJW-B-1996-S-1420-N-1 NJW Heft-21 (p.1369-1432) (22.05.1996)

    arXiv 1996

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    BGH. 2024. BGH Tötung durch Intensivmediziner - Kausalität nicht indizierter Medikamentengabe.Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW)(2024). https://beck- online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata/zeits/NJW/2024/cont/NJW.2024.2856.1.htm NJW Heft-39 (p.2793-2864) (19.09.2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    BGH. 2025. BGH Tatsachengrundlage der richterlichen Überzeugung. Rechtsprechungs-Report Strafrecht (NStZ-RR)(2025). https://beck-online.beck. de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fnstz-rr%2F2025%2Fcont%2Fnstz- rr.2025.256.2.htm&pos=2&hlwords=on NStZ Heft-8 (p.233-264) (02.08.2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Folker Bittmann. 2023. Section 111e para. 74 et. sqq. InMünchener Kommentar zur Srafprozessordnung: StPO(2. ed.), Hans Kudlich (Ed.). C.H. Beck, München

    2023

  4. [12]

    Christian Brand and Aleksandar Zivanic. 2023. BGH Strafverfolgungsentschädi- gung und Aufrechnung aus Wertersatzverfall.Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW)(2023). https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata/zeits/NJW/2023/cont/ NJW.2023.3230.1.htm NJW Heft-44 (p.3193-3256) (26...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Stefan D Cassella. 2019. Nature and basic problems of non-conviction-based confiscation in the united states.Veredas do Direito16 (2019), 41

    2019

  6. [14]

    Remy Cazabet, Baccour Rym, and Latapy Matthieu. 2017. Tracking bitcoin users activity using community detection on a network of weak signals. In International conference on complex networks and their applications. Springer, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Germany, 166–177

    2017

  7. [15]

    Deepesh Chaudhari, Rachit Agarwal, and Sandeep Kumar Shukla. 2021. Towards malicious address identification in bitcoin. In2021 IEEE international conference on blockchain (Blockchain). IEEE, Melbourne, Australia, 425–432

    2021

  8. [16]

    Neal B Christiansen and Julia E Jarrett. 2019. Forfeiting cryptocurrency: Decrypt- ing the challenges of a modern asset.Dep’t of Just. J. Fed. L. & Prac.67 (2019), 155

    2019

  9. [17]

    Dominic Deuber, Viktoria Ronge, and Christian Rückert. 2022. Sok: Assumptions underlying cryptocurrency deanonymizations.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2022 (2022), 670–691

    2022

  10. [18]

    Stephanie Holmes Didwania. 2025. Asset Forfeiture and Inequality.Stan. L. Rev. 77 (2025), 159

    2025

  11. [19]

    Thomas Dougherty and Nevenka Lastrić Ðurić. 2022. The United States approach to the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime and cryptocurrency crime. Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu29, 2 (2022), 409–431

    2022

  12. [20]

    Simon Dyson, William J Buchanan, and Liam Bell. 2019. The challenges of investigating cryptocurrencies and blockchain related crime.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.122211, 2 (2019), 6 pages

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Edgeworth (Ed.)

    Dee R. Edgeworth (Ed.). 2014.Asset Forfeiture(3. ed.). American Bar Association, USA

    2014

  14. [22]

    Shirley U Emehelu. 2018. A Shot in the Dark: Using Asset Forfeiture Tools to Identify and Restrain Criminals’ Cryptocurrency.Dep’t of Just. J. Fed. L. & Prac. 66 (2018), 81. 12 Reliability of the Multi-Input Heuristic in the Context of Law Enforcement

    2018

  15. [23]

    Dmitry Ermilov, Maxim Panov, and Yury Yanovich. 2017. Automatic bitcoin address clustering. In2017 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA). IEEE, Cancun, Mexico, 461–466

    2017

  16. [24]

    Albin Eser. 2014. Adversatorische und inquisitorische Verfahrensmodelle: Ein kritischer Vergleich mit Strukturalternativen. InDie strafprozessuale Hauptver- handlung zwischen inquisitorischem und adversatorischem Modell: Eine rechtsver- gleichende Analyse am Beispiel des deuts...

    2014

  17. [25]

    Michael Fleder, Michael S Kester, and Sudeep Pillai. 2015. Bitcoin transaction graph analysis.ArXivabs/1502.01657 (2015), 8 pages

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Michael Fröwis, Thilo Gottschalk, Bernhard Haslhofer, Christian Rückert, and Paulina Pesch. 2020. Safeguarding the evidential value of forensic cryptocurrency investigations.Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation33 (2020), 200902

    2020

  19. [27]

    Steven Goldfeder, Harry Kalodner, Dillon Reisman, and Arvind Narayanan. 2018. When the cookie meets the blockchain: Privacy risks of web payments via cryptocurrencies.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies4 (2018), 179– 199

    2018

  20. [28]

    Yanan Gong, Kam-Pui Chow, Hing-Fung Ting, and Siu-Ming Yiu. 2022. Analyzing the error rates of bitcoin clustering heuristics. InIFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics. Springer, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Germany, 187–205

    2022

  21. [29]

    Yanan Gong, Kam Pui Chow, and Siu Ming Yiu. 2025. Improved Bitcoin simulation model and address heuristic method.Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation53 (2025), 301935

    2025

  22. [30]

    Mikkel Alexander Harlev, Haohua Sun Yin, Klaus Christian Langenheldt, Raghava Rao Mukkamala, and Ravi Vatrapu. 2018. Breaking Bad: De- Anonymising Entity Types on the Bitcoin Blockchain Using Supervised Machine Learning. InThe 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sci...

    2018

  23. [31]

    Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 3497–3506

  24. [32]

    Martin Harrigan and Christoph Fretter. 2016. The unreasonable effectiveness of address clustering. In2016 intl ieee conferences on ubiquitous intelligence & computing, advanced and trusted computing, scalable computing and communica- tions, cloud and big data computing, intern...

    2016

  25. [33]

    Xi He, Ketai He, Shenwen Lin, Jinglin Yang, and Hongliang Mao. 2022. Bitcoin address clustering method based on multiple heuristic conditions.IET Blockchain 2, 2 (2022), 44–56

    2022

  26. [34]

    Jason Hirshman, Yifei Huang, and Stephen Macke. 2013. Unsupervised ap- proaches to detecting anomalous behavior in the bitcoin transaction network. Technical report, Stanford University(2013), 5 pages

    2013

  27. [35]

    Yining Hu, Suranga Seneviratne, Kanchana Thilakarathna, Kensuke Fukuda, and Aruna Seneviratne. 2019. Characterizing and detecting money laundering activities on the bitcoin network.ArXivabs/1912.12060 (2019), 17 pages

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Alice Huang. 2015. Reaching within silk road: the need for a new subpoena power that targets illegal bitcoin transactions.BCL Rev.56 (2015), 2093

    2015

  29. [37]

    Marc Jourdan, Sebastien Blandin, Laura Wynter, and Pralhad Deshpande. 2018. Characterizing entities in the bitcoin blockchain. In2018 IEEE international conference on data mining workshops (ICDMW). IEEE, Singapore, 55–62

    2018

  30. [38]

    George Kappos, Haaroon Yousaf, Rainer Stütz, Sofia Rollet, Bernhard Haslhofer, and Sarah Meiklejohn. 2022. How to peel a million: Validating and expanding bitcoin clusters. In31st usenix security symposium (usenix security 22). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 2207–2223

    2022

  31. [39]

    Michele R Korver, C Alden Pelker, and Elisabeth Poteat. 2019. Attribution in cryptocurrency cases.Dep’t of Just. J. Fed. L. & Prac.67 (2019), 233

    2019

  32. [40]

    Andrea Lancichinetti, Santo Fortunato, and János Kertész. 2009. Detecting the overlapping and hierarchical community structure in complex networks.New journal of physics11, 3 (2009), 033015

    2009

  33. [41]

    Yu-Jing Lin, Po-Wei Wu, Cheng-Han Hsu, I-Ping Tu, and Shih-wei Liao. 2019. An evaluation of bitcoin address classification based on transaction history summa- rization. In2019 IEEE international conference on blockchain and cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE, Seoul, Korea, 302–310

    2019

  34. [42]

    Kelvin Lubbertsen, Michel van Eeten, and Rolf van Wegberg. 2025. Ghost Clusters: Evaluating Attribution of Illicit Services through Cryptocurrency Tracing. In 34th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 25). USENIX Association, Seattle, WA, 1357–1374

    2025

  35. [43]

    Sarah Meiklejohn, Marjori Pomarole, Grant Jordan, Kirill Levchenko, Damon McCoy, Geoffrey M Voelker, and Stefan Savage. 2013. A fistful of bitcoins: characterizing payments among men with no names. InProceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference. Associ...

    2013

  36. [44]

    Markus Meißner. 2025. Section 73a para. 16. InMünchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch: StGB(5. ed.), Volker Erb and Jürgen Schäfer (Eds.). C.H. Beck, München

    2025

  37. [45]

    Cathy E Moore. 1983. Fourth Amendment: Totality of the Circumstances Ap- proach to Probable Cause Based on Informant’s Tips.The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-)74, 4 (1983), 1249–1264

    1983

  38. [46]

    Malte Möser and Arvind Narayanan. 2022. Resurrecting address clustering in bitcoin. InInternational Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Germany, 386–403

    2022

  39. [47]

    2015.Data-driven de-anonymization in bitcoin

    Jonas David Nick. 2015.Data-driven de-anonymization in bitcoin. Master’s thesis. ETH-Zürich

    2015

  40. [48]

    C Alden Pelker, Christopher B Brown, and Richard M Tucker. 2021. Using blockchain analysis from investigation to trial.Dep’t of Just. J. Fed. L. & Prac.69 (2021), 59

    2021

  41. [49]

    David Pimentel. 2012. Forfeitures Revisited: Bringing Principle to Practice in Federal Court.Nev. LJ13 (2012), 1

    2012

  42. [50]

    Fergal Reid and Martin Harrigan. 2012. An analysis of anonymity in the bitcoin system. InSecurity and privacy in social networks. Springer, New York, NY, 197–223

    2012

  43. [51]

    Jonathan Reiter. 2025. Out-Of-Sample Testing The Co-Spend Heuristic.A vailable at SSRN 5974455(2025), 23 pages

    2025

  44. [52]

    Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir. 2013. Quantitative analysis of the full bitcoin transac- tion graph. InInternational conference on financial cryptography and data security. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 6–24

    2013

  45. [53]

    2023.Digitale Daten als Beweismittel im Strafverfahren

    Christian Rückert. 2023.Digitale Daten als Beweismittel im Strafverfahren. Vol. 24. Mohr Siebeck

    2023

  46. [54]

    Hugo Schnoering, Pierre Porthaux, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2024. As- sessing the efficacy of heuristic-based address clustering for bitcoin.ArXiv abs/2403.00523 (2024), 20 pages

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hugo Schnoering and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2023. Heuristics for detecting coinjoin transactions on the bitcoin blockchain.ArXivabs/2311.12491 (2023), 21 pages

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Architektur des Sicherheitsrechts

    Maja Serafin. 2021.Civil Forfeiture: nicht-strafrechtliche Einziehung im US- amerikanischen Bundesrecht. Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminal- ität, Sicherheit und Recht, Forschungsgruppe "Architektur des Sicherheitsrechts" (ArchiS)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Pascal Tippe and Christoph Deckers. 2025. Unmixing the mix: Patterns and challenges in Bitcoin mixer investigations.Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation52 (2025), 301876

    2025

  50. [58]

    Natkamon Tovanich and Rémy Cazabet. 2023. Fingerprinting bitcoin entities using money flow representation learning.Applied Network Science8, 1 (2023), 63

    2023

  51. [59]

    Kentaroh Toyoda, Tomoaki Ohtsuki, and P Takis Mathiopoulos. 2018. Multi-class bitcoin-enabled service identification based on transaction history summariza- tion. In2018 IEEE international conference on internet of things (iThings) and IEEE green computing and communications (...

    2018

  52. [60]

    Rafael Ramos Tubino, Céline Robardet, and Rémy Cazabet. 2022. Towards a better identification of Bitcoin actors by supervised learning.Data & Knowledge Engineering142 (2022), 102094

    2022

  53. [61]

    Nguyen Xuan Vinh, Julien Epps, and James Bailey. 2010. Information Theoretic Measures for Clusterings Comparison: Variants, Properties, Normalization and Correction for Chance.Journal of Machine Learning Research11, 95 (2010), 2837–2854. http://jmlr.org/papers/v11/vinh10a.html

    2010

  54. [62]

    Mark Weber, Giacomo Domeniconi, Jie Chen, Daniel Karl I Weidele, Claudio Bellei, Tom Robinson, and Charles E Leiserson. 2019. Anti-money laundering in bitcoin: Experimenting with graph convolutional networks for financial forensics. ArXivabs/1908.02591 (2019), 7 pages

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Lei Wu, Yufeng Hu, Yajin Zhou, Haoyu Wang, Xiapu Luo, Zhi Wang, Fan Zhang, and Kui Ren. 2021. Towards understanding and demystifying bitcoin mixing services. In2021 World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2021. Association for Com- puting Machinery, Inc, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 33–44

    2021

  56. [64]

    Yuhang Zhang, Jun Wang, and Jie Luo. 2020. Heuristic-based address clustering in bitcoin.IEEE Access8 (2020), 210582–210591. 13

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.