Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Talking Transactions: Decentralized Communication through Ethereum Input Data Messages (IDMs)

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ethereum's input data field is a real messaging channel: 867,140 informative messages reveal distinct English and Chinese on-chain cultures.

desk verdict A genuine first measurement of Ethereum's input-data chatter, with a cultural-divergence centerpiece that depends on unvalidated LLM labels—worth refereeing, but the percentages need a human-labeled validation set before they are load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24724 v1 pith:DXMKTFXY submitted 2025-05-30 cs.CR

Xihan Xiong , Zhipeng Wang , Qin Wang , Endong Liu , Pascal Berrang , William Knottenbelt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords Ethereuminputdatamessageson-chaincommunicationsemanticanalysissentimentnetworkcontentmoderationlargelanguagemodels
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 establishes that Ethereum's input data field, designed for smart-contract calls, is actively repurposed as a peer-to-peer messaging channel. Analyzing transactions from the genesis block to February 2024, it isolates 867,140 informative messages embedded in ordinary user-to-user transfers. Its central substantive claim is cultural: English-language messages concentrate on security warnings and scam alerts with predominantly negative emotion, while Chinese-language messages center on social and emotional expression with a positive tone. The paper also claims that IDM participants form small, loosely connected communities, that victims use the channel to negotiate with attackers, and that unmoderated toxic content on-chain creates a governance gap. If the analysis is right, Ethereum carries a substantial social layer that standard financial readings of blockchain data miss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Input Data Message (IDM): human-readable text embedded in the input data field of transactions between ordinary user accounts (externally owned accounts, EOAs), decoded from UTF-8. The argument is carried by a filtering pipeline that reduces over five million decodable transactions to 867,140 informative IDMs, followed by a large-language-model-based classifier using a hand-built taxonomy of 12 topics, 48 subtopics, and 16 emotion categories, plus a community-detection pass over the sender-receiver graph. The taxonomy is the instrument that turns raw hex into the English-versus-Chinese cultural comparison, and the graph analysis turns addresses into statements about broadcast-heavy versus personal communication patterns.

What would settle it

Take a stratified random sample of, say, 500 English and 500 Chinese IDMs, have independent human coders label language, topic, and emotion using the paper's taxonomy without seeing the LLM output, and compute agreement; if the LLM's per-class precision or recall is materially below the level needed to sustain the 24% versus 44% topic gap, or if the errors correlate with language, the cultural-divergence result is an artifact of labeling bias rather than a property of the messages.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the input data field has become a used communication medium, not just an ABI payload, and that this on-chain talk is culturally patterned. English and Chinese account for 99.8% of natural-language IDMs, with English at 95.4% and Chinese at 4.4%. English IDMs cluster in Security & Incidents (24%), led by warnings about phishing and rug pulls (17%), and Fear is the dominant emotion, with 196,338 total occurrences. Chinese IDMs cluster in Social & Emotional Expression (44%), led by love and confession (18%), daily life records (8%), and birthday wishes (7%), with Joy and Love dominant, and 24% of Chinese IDMs are on-chain copyright certificates. Longer English IDMs tend to accompany high-value ETH transfers for protocol-level purposes, while longer Chinese IDMs often carry symbolic amounts such as 5.201314 ETH for emotional intent. The IDM network is mostly one-directional: the average clustering coefficient is 0.01, 59.99% of communities consist of exactly two addresses, and the largest community issues 34.9% of all IDMs. In security incidents, recovery messages that offer rewards or propose negotiation draw reply rates of 15.9% and 19.6%, versus 7.3% for pleading and 5.3% for threatening.

Load-bearing premise

Every language, topic, and emotion percentage in the paper rests on labels produced by a single large language model, reviewed only qualitatively, with no validation set or measured error rate; if those labels are systematically biased by language or prompt wording, the central cultural-divergence claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ethereum's ledger is a permanent, public archive of user speech, so future social-science work can treat on-chain messages as historical records that cannot be edited or removed.
  • English-speaking IDM users predominantly use the channel to warn about scams and hacks, while Chinese-speaking users use it for love confessions, daily-life records, and symbolic transfers, implying that communication norms, not just costs, shape blockchain usage.
  • Longer messages correlate with different purposes by language: high-ETH protocol transfers in English versus emotionally meaningful micro-amounts in Chinese, which matters for interpreting transaction-value statistics.
  • The IDM network is broadcast-heavy rather than conversational, with 95.5% of addresses engaged in one-directional messaging and only two-address communities dominating the periphery, so on-chain talk resembles public bulletin boards more than chat rooms.
  • Victim-to-attacker fund-recovery messages with rewards or negotiation draw materially higher reply rates than pleading or threatening, suggesting a measurable, strategy-dependent negotiation channel on-chain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the LLM labels hold, the quarterly topic time series functions as an on-chain public-sentiment index, since spikes visibly track events like the 2018 #MeToo wave and COVID-19 lockdown discussions.
  • Editorial inference: the reply-rate comparison points to a testable practical playbook, namely that victims who open with a reward or compromise proposal rather than a threat are more likely to get an attacker response; a prospective analysis of post-2024 incidents could test this.
  • Editorial inference: the EOA-to-EOA, UTF-8-decodable filter excludes contract-directed inputs and encoded payloads, so the 99.8% English-plus-Chinese split describes one visible slice of the channel; a broader definition including contract calls would likely shift the topic mix and could dilute the cultural divergence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies human-readable messages embedded in the input data field of Ethereum transactions, which the authors call Input Data Messages (IDMs). Using a crawl from the genesis block to February 2024, the authors identify 5,238,336 UTF-8-decodable IDM transactions and, after filtering, 867,140 informative IDMs from EOA-to-EOA transactions. They use GPT-4o for language detection, topic classification (12 main topics, 48 subtopics), and sentiment analysis (16 emotions), then report descriptive statistics on topic and emotion distributions for English and Chinese, value/length patterns, network structure, security-related victim-to-attacker messages, and toxic content. The central claim is that Ethereum's input data field functions as a decentralized communication medium with culturally patterned usage: English messages focus on security warnings and negative emotions, while Chinese messages emphasize social and emotional expression with positive tone.

Significance. If the semantic findings are accurate, the paper opens a new empirical area: a large, previously unmeasured social messaging layer on Ethereum, and it documents cultural divergence that is of interest to both blockchain researchers and social computing. The paper's contributions include a large crawled dataset, a transparent decoding and filtering pipeline, and a useful taxonomy for on-chain messages. The authors also acknowledge some limitations and take steps to avoid re-publishing toxic content. However, the central percentages rest entirely on unvalidated LLM labels, and the security-effectiveness claims lack a baseline, so the quantitative conclusions are not yet reliable. With the addition of a human-validated gold set and a proper reply-rate baseline, the paper could become a solid reference for this new area.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1.1, §5.2, §12 (Tables 3–4, Figs. 5–6)] The paper's headline findings—English IDMs centered on Security & Incident (24%) and Chinese on Social & Emotional Expression (44%), with contrasting negative/positive emotional tones—are computed exclusively from GPT-4o labels assigned in §5.1 and §5.2. No validation set, inter-annotator agreement, per-class precision/recall, or error rates are reported anywhere, and the limitations section (§12) only asserts that prompts were carefully designed and that human review was used. Because the Appendix A prompt defines Negative-Fear as 'caution about risks, scams, or vulnerabilities' and the Security & Incident topic includes 'Warnings on malicious activities,' the observed alignment between English security messages and Fear could be an artifact of the taxonomy's definitions. In addition, the sentiment classification collects a confidence score but applies no threshold, so low-confidence labels weight equally with high-confidence ones. A human-annotated gold set (at least a few hundred messages per language), with reported agreement or error metrics, is required before the cultural-divergence percentages can be considered measurements of the corpus rather than properties of the model.
  2. [§8.1, Table 5] The claim that negotiation and reward offers are 'linked to higher reply rates' (15.9% and 19.6%, vs. 7.3% for pleading and 5.3% for threatening) is not supported by the reported analysis. There is no baseline reply rate for the pool of security-related IDMs as a whole, nor for a suitable control group (e.g., other IDM types), and there is no definition of what counts as a 'reply' (e.g., a subsequent transaction from the attacker address to the victim within a time window). Without these, one cannot tell whether the observed differences exceed the general propensity of attackers to respond to any incoming transaction, or whether they are statistically significant given the small sample sizes (n=245 and n=485 for Reward and Negotiate).
  3. [Abstract, §2, §3] The paper frames itself as a study of 'Ethereum IDMs' from the genesis block onward, but the actual analyzed dataset is a filtered subset: §3 keeps only EOA-to-EOA transactions whose input data decodes as UTF-8, excluding all contract-directed ABI-encoded calls and any encoded/encrypted payloads. The abstract's '87%+ historical transactions' refers to the crawled block range, not to the 867,140 informative IDMs that remain after filtering; this is misleading about the breadth of the analysis. Because contract-mediated messages and non-UTF-8 encodings may carry different linguistic content, the paper's conclusions about 'what Ethereum users talk about' should be explicitly scoped to decodable EOA-to-EOA IDMs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1 vs. §7.1] The number of senders is inconsistent: §1 reports 59,795 senders for all informative IDMs, while §7.1 states that 189,111 addresses send the 422,387 natural-language IDMs. Please clarify the filter for each number or correct the error.
  2. [§7.2] The counts of dyadic communities are inconsistent: the text first reports 15,625 communities of size two, then refers to 'the 15,205 smallest communities of exactly two addresses.' Please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The 'Percentage' column in Table 3 appears to be aggregate across languages, while Figures 5 and 6 show language-specific shares; add a sentence to the caption explaining the base used for each percentage, since the current layout can make 18.7% and 24% for Security & Incident look contradictory.
  4. [Figure 4] The cumulative percentage curve would be easier to interpret if the caption indicated that it corresponds to the right-hand y-axis, and if the '80% of unique IDMs are shorter than 100 bytes' claim were marked on the plot.
  5. [§10 and §12] The paper should state the number of samples subjected to human review and how disagreements with GPT-4o were resolved; the current description ('human review and iterative prompting adjustments') is too vague to assess classification reliability.
  6. [§8.1] The strategies Plead, Threaten, Reward, and Negotiate are identified by LLM; the same validation concern applies here as in §5, and at minimum a few examples per strategy should be shown so readers can judge the labeling.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central findings are observational and data-driven, with one minor definitional overlap between the Fear emotion and the Security warning topic.

  1. self definitional [Appendix A (Listing 1); §5.1.1 / Table 3; §5.2 / Figure 8]
    "Negative-Fear: Messages that express anxiety, suspicion, or caution about risks, scams, or vulnerabilities. ... Warnings: Warnings on malicious activities, e.g., phishing, scams, rug pulls. ... Fear is dominant in Security & Incident (6,809 messages), suggesting that discussions around scams, hacks, or risk tend to evoke anxiety-driven expressions."

    The reported coupling of Fear with Security & Incident is partly entailed by the taxonomy itself. The Security & Incident-Warnings subtopic is defined as 'Warnings on malicious activities, e.g., phishing, scams, rug pulls,' while Negative-Fear is defined as 'anxiety, suspicion, or caution about risks, scams, or vulnerabilities.' A message satisfying the Warning definition also largely satisfies the Fear definition, so the largest cross-tabulation cell is a definitional projection as much as an empirical discovery. This is a mild, localized circularity: it does not force the main English/Chinese divergence in topic shares or polarity, nor the network and cost findings, which remain data-driven.

full rationale

This paper is an observational, measurement-oriented study rather than a formal derivation: it crawls Ethereum input data, decodes UTF-8 messages, filters an informative subset, and uses GPT-4o plus human review to label language, topic, and sentiment. There are no fitted parameters later renamed as predictions, no equations whose outputs repeat their inputs, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The authors' prior works cited for DeFi attacks, DeFi surveys, and mixer usage are contextual and do not force the central conclusions. The central claims—English IDMs skew toward Security & Incident (24%) with negative sentiment, Chinese IDMs toward Social & Emotional Expression (44%) with positive sentiment, longer Chinese messages carry symbolic amounts, and IDM networks are sparse—stand or fall on the data pipeline and LLM label quality. The absence of a validation set for GPT-4o labels is a correctness and robustness concern, not circularity. The only near-circular element is the definitional overlap between the Warnings topic and the Negative-Fear emotion, which partially explains the Fear-within-Security cluster; this is localized and does not undermine the cross-cultural contrast. Overall circularity is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the public Ethereum ledger as ground truth for transactions, but every semantic layer (language, topic, emotion, reply status) is imposed by the authors' taxonomy and GPT-4o judgments. The free parameters are hand-chosen length bins and inclusion rules; no fitted physical parameters are involved, and no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • IDM length bins for value analysis = 0-10, 10-100, >=100 bytes
    Hand-chosen categories in §6.1; the claim that longer English IDMs have higher ETH value while longer Chinese IDMs carry symbolic amounts depends on these cut points, with no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption UTF-8 decoding is a valid proxy for human-intended messages
    In §3, any input data that decodes successfully as UTF-8 is treated as a candidate IDM. Binary data can decode as text by chance, and the follow-up filter is heuristic.
  • domain assumption EOA-to-EOA transactions capture the IDM communication channel
    In §3, the analysis focuses on transactions between two externally owned accounts, excluding messages sent to smart contracts and contract-emitted data, which narrows the claimed scope of 'Ethereum IDMs'.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o classifications can be trusted for language, topic, and sentiment percentages
    In §5.1.1 and §12, the LLM assigns topics and emotions with only qualitative human review; no inter-annotator agreement, validation set, or error rates are reported, yet all percentages rest on these labels.
  • domain assumption Reply detection for attacker responses is unambiguous
    In §8.1, Table 5 reports reply rates for fund recovery strategies, but the paper does not define how a 'reply' is identified or validated, making the effectiveness comparison fragile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Talking Transactions: Decentralized Communication through Ethereum Input Data Messages (IDMs)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DXMKTFXY

@misc{pith2026250524724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Talking Transactions: Decentralized Communication through Ethereum Input Data Messages (IDMs)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DXMKTFXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24724}
}
read the original abstract

Can you imagine, blockchain transactions can talk! In this paper, we study how they talk and what they talk about. We focus on the input data field of Ethereum transactions, which is designed to allow external callers to interact with smart contracts. In practice, this field also enables users to embed natural language messages into transactions. Users can leverage these Input Data Messages (IDMs) for peer-to-peer communication. This means that, beyond Ethereum's well-known role as a financial infrastructure, it also serves as a decentralized communication medium. We present the first large-scale analysis of Ethereum IDMs from the genesis block to February 2024 (3134 days). We filter IDMs to extract 867,140 transactions with informative IDMs and use LLMs for language detection. We find that English (95.4%) and Chinese (4.4%) dominate the use of natural languages in IDMs. Interestingly, English IDMs center on security and scam warnings (24%) with predominantly negative emotions, while Chinese IDMs emphasize emotional expression and social connection (44%) with a more positive tone. We also observe that longer English IDMs often transfer high ETH values for protocol-level purposes, while longer Chinese IDMs tend to involve symbolic transfer amounts for emotional intent. Moreover, we find that the IDM participants tend to form small, loosely connected communities (59.99%). Our findings highlight culturally and functionally divergent use cases of the IDM channel across user communities. We further examine the security relevance of IDMs in on-chain attacks. Many victims use them to appeal to attackers for fund recovery. IDMs containing negotiations or reward offers are linked to higher reply rates. We also analyze IDMs' regulatory implications. Their misuse for abuse, threats, and sexual solicitation reveals the urgent need for content moderation and regulation in decentralized systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24724 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline of Ethereum IDM analysis. • Cost Analysis (§6). We analyze IDM transaction value and cost. We find that longer English IDMs are often associated with higher ETH transfers for functional or protocol-level purposes. In con￾trast, longer Chinese IDMs tend to involve symbolic transfer amounts (e.g., 5.20 ETH) for emotional intent. We also find that gas costs per byte fell sharply after EIP-2028, yet IDM volume … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal trends of IDM with structured tokens. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal trends of transactions with IDMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Topic distribution for unique English IDMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Text length distribution by IDM types. IDM Text Length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal trends of topics (unique IDMs). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: English IDM topic and transaction values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Emotion – topic distribution of unique Ethereum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: IDM gas costs and cumulative data size over time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Weighted reciprocity and clustering coefficient. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Topic distributions in different communities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Topic distributions for self-messaging IDMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Temporal trends of IDMs with security relevance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: English (left) and Chinese (right) IDM word clouds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Temporal trends of toxic IDMs by subtopics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

    Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. A vailable at: https:// bitcoin.org/ bitcoin.pdf , 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger

    Gavin Wood. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum project yellow paper , 151:1–32, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Mastering ethereum: building smart contracts and dapps

    Andreas M Antonopoulos and Gavin Wood. Mastering ethereum: building smart contracts and dapps. O’reilly Media, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Etherscan information center: Understanding transaction input data

    Teck Yuan Lee. Etherscan information center: Understanding transaction input data. Retrieved by May 2025, https:// info.etherscan.com/understanding-transacti on-input-data/ , 2023

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    The Bybit hack: Following North Korea’s largest exploit

    TRM Labs. The Bybit hack: Following North Korea’s largest exploit. Retrieved by May 2025, https:// www.trmlabs.com/ resources/ blog/the-bybit-hack-f ollowi ng-north-koreas-largest-exploit , 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Automatic language identification in texts: A survey.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 65:675–782, 2019

    Tommi Jauhiainen, Marco Lui, Marcos Zampieri, Timothy Baldwin, and Krister Lindén. Automatic language identification in texts: A survey.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 65:675–782, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    SoK: Decentralized finance (DeFi)

    Sam Werner, Daniel Perez, Lewis Gudgeon, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Dominik Harz, and William Knottenbelt. SoK: Decentralized finance (DeFi). In ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT) , pages 30–46, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Decentralized Finance (DeFi): A Survey

    Erya Jiang, Bo Qin, Qin Wang, Zhipeng Wang, Qianhong Wu, Jian Weng, Xinyu Li, Chenyang Wang, Yuhang Ding, and Yanran Zhang. Decentralized finance (DeFi): A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05282, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Me too,# metoo: Countering cruelty with empathy

    Michelle Rodino-Colocino. Me too,# metoo: Countering cruelty with empathy. Communication and critical/cultural studies , 15(1):96–100, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Ethereum.org: The history of ethereum

    Ethereum. Ethereum.org: The history of ethereum. Retrieved by May 2025, https:// ethereum.org/en/ history/ , 2019

    2025

  3. [11]

    EIP-2028: Transaction data gas cost reduction (settled)

    Akhunov Alexey, Sasson Eli Ben, Brand Tom, Guthmann Louis, and Levy Avihu. EIP-2028: Transaction data gas cost reduction (settled). Retrieved by May 2025, https:// eips.ethereum.org/ EI PS/eip-2028 , 2019

    2025

  4. [12]

    Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

    Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefeb- vre. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , 2008(10):P10008, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Sok: Decentralized finance (DeFi) attacks

    Liyi Zhou, Xihan Xiong, Jens Ernstberger, Stefanos Chaliasos, Zhipeng Wang, Ye Wang, Kaihua Qin, Roger Wattenhofer, Dawn Song, and Arthur Gervais. Sok: Decentralized finance (DeFi) attacks. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 2444–2461. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    On how zero-knowledge proof blockchain mixers improve, and worsen user privacy

    Zhipeng Wang, Stefanos Chaliasos, Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, Lifeng Gao, Pascal Berrang, Benjamin Livshits, and Arthur Gervais. On how zero-knowledge proof blockchain mixers improve, and worsen user privacy. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference (WWW), pages 2022–2032, 2023

    2022

  7. [15]

    Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance

    Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society , 7(1):2053951719897945, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Under- standing and improving content moderation in web3 platforms

    Wenrui Zuo, Raul J Mondragon, Aravindh Raman, and Gareth Tyson. Under- standing and improving content moderation in web3 platforms. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume 18, pages 1859–1870, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Covert communication via blockchain: Hiding patterns and communication patterns

    Tao Zhang, Qianhong Wu, et al. Covert communication via blockchain: Hiding patterns and communication patterns. Computer Standards & Interfaces (CSI) , 90:103851, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Covert channels in blockchain and blockchain based covert communication: Overview, state-of- the-art, and future directions

    Tao Zhang, Bingyu Li, Yan Zhu, Tianxu Han, and Qianhong Wu. Covert channels in blockchain and blockchain based covert communication: Overview, state-of- the-art, and future directions. Computer Communications, 205:136–146, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Whispers on Ethereum: Blockchain-based covert data embedding schemes

    Shaoyuan Liu, Zhi Fang, Feng Gao, Bakh Koussainov, Zijian Zhang, Jiamou Liu, and Liehuang Zhu. Whispers on Ethereum: Blockchain-based covert data embedding schemes. In ACM International Symposium on Blockchain and Secure Critical Infrastructure (BSCI@AsiaCCS), pages 171–179, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Blockchain meets covert communication: A survey

    Zhuo Chen, Liehuang Zhu, Peng Jiang, Can Zhang, Feng Gao, Jialing He, Dawei Xu, and Yan Zhang. Blockchain meets covert communication: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 24(4):2163–2192, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    A novel covert timing channel based on bitcoin messages

    Liehuang Zhu, Qi Liu, Zhuo Chen, Can Zhang, Feng Gao, and Zhongliang Yang. A novel covert timing channel based on bitcoin messages. IEEE Transactions on Computers (TC), 72(10):2913–2924, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Bitcoin inscriptions: Foundations and beyond

    Ningran Li, Minfeng Qi, et al. Bitcoin inscriptions: Foundations and beyond. IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    The writing is on the wall: Analyzing the boom of inscriptions and its impact on EVM-compatible blockchains

    Johnnatan Messias, Krzysztof Gogol, Maria Inês Silva, and Benjamin Livshits. The writing is on the wall: Analyzing the boom of inscriptions and its impact on EVM-compatible blockchains. Companion of the ACM Web Conference (Work- shop@WWW), 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    When ChatGPT meets smart contract vulnerability detection: How far are we? ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) , 2023

    Chong Chen, Jianzhong Su, Jiachi Chen, Yanlin Wang, Tingting Bi, Jianxing Yu, Yanli Wang, Xingwei Lin, Ting Chen, and Zibin Zheng. When ChatGPT meets smart contract vulnerability detection: How far are we? ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) , 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Smartinv: Multimodal learning for smart contract invariant inference

    Sally Junsong Wang, Kexin Pei, and Junfeng Yang. Smartinv: Multimodal learning for smart contract invariant inference. InIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 2217–2235, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ad- versarial generation method for smart contract fuzz testing seeds guided by chain-based llm

    Jiaze Sun, Zhiqiang Yin, Hengshan Zhang, Xiang Chen, and Wei Zheng. Ad- versarial generation method for smart contract fuzz testing seeds guided by chain-based llm. Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 32(1):1–28, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Detect llama-finding vulnerabilities in smart contracts using large language models

    Peter Ince, Xiapu Luo, Jiangshan Yu, Joseph K Liu, and Xiaoning Du. Detect llama-finding vulnerabilities in smart contracts using large language models. Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy (ACISP) , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Gptscan: Detecting logic vulnerabilities in smart contracts by combining GPT with program analysis

    Yuqiang Sun, Daoyuan Wu, Yue Xue, Han Liu, Haijun Wang, Zhengzi Xu, Xiaofei Xie, and Yang Liu. Gptscan: Detecting logic vulnerabilities in smart contracts by combining GPT with program analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (I...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Combining fine-tuning and LLM-based agents for intuitive smart contract auditing with justifications

    Wei Ma, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Tianwen Wang, Shangqing Liu, Jian Zhang, Yue Xue, and Yang Liu. Combining fine-tuning and LLM-based agents for intuitive smart contract auditing with justifications. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Adapting large language models for smart contract defects detection in the open network blockchain

    Huilin Ge, Ze Wang, Runbang Liu, Zhiwen Qiu, Jie Xia, Ting Chen, and Hongzi Zhu. Adapting large language models for smart contract defects detection in the open network blockchain. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (IOTJ) , 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Logic meets magic: LLMs cracking smart contract vulnerabilities

    ZeKe Xiao, Qin Wang, Hammond Pearce, and Shiping Chen. Logic meets magic: LLMs cracking smart contract vulnerabilities. IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) , 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    SCALM: Detecting bad practices in smart contracts through LLMs.The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2025

    Zongwei Li, Xiaoqi Li, Wenkai Li, and Xin Wang. SCALM: Detecting bad practices in smart contracts through LLMs.The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Large language models for cryptocurrency transaction analysis: A Bitcoin case study

    Yuchen Lei, Yuexin Xiang, et al. Large language models for cryptocurrency transaction analysis: A Bitcoin case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18158, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Linking cryp- toasset attribution tags to knowledge graph entities: An LLM-based approach

    Régnier Avice, Bernhard Haslhofer, Zhidong Li, and Jianlong Zhou. Linking cryp- toasset attribution tags to knowledge graph entities: An LLM-based approach. Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) , 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Decoding SEC actions: Enforcement trends through analyzing blockchain litigation using LLM- based thematic factor mapping

    Junliang Luo, Xihan Xiong, William Knottenbelt, and Xue Liu. Decoding SEC actions: Enforcement trends through analyzing blockchain litigation using LLM- based thematic factor mapping. The International Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence and Law (ICAIL) , 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Prop- ertyGPT: LLM-driven formal verification of smart contracts through retrieval- augmented property generation

    Ye Liu, Yue Xue, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Yi Li, Miaolei Shi, and Yang Liu. Prop- ertyGPT: LLM-driven formal verification of smart contracts through retrieval- augmented property generation. Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) Symposium, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Unearthing gas-wasting code smells in smart contracts with large language models

    Jinan Jiang, Zihao Li, Haoran Qin, Muhui Jiang, Xiapu Luo, Xiaoming Wu, Haoyu Wang, Yutian Tang, Chenxiong Qian, and Ting Chen. Unearthing gas-wasting code smells in smart contracts with large language models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE), 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Trust in defi: an empirical study of the decentralized exchange

    Jianlei Han, Shiyang Huang, and Zhuo Zhong. Trust in defi: an empirical study of the decentralized exchange. A vailable at SSRN, 3896461, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Hunting in the dark forest: A pre-trained model for on-chain attack transaction detection in web3

    Zhiying Wu, Jiajing Wu, Hui Zhang, Zibin Zheng, and Weiqiang Wang. Hunting in the dark forest: A pre-trained model for on-chain attack transaction detection in web3. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference (WWW) , 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability

    Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, and Ari Juels. Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability. InIEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP) , page...

    2020

  33. [41]

    BRC-20: Hope or hype

    Qin Wang and Guangsheng Yu. BRC-20: Hope or hype. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10652, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Who stole my NFT? investigating web3 NFT phishing scams on Ethereum

    Jingjing Yang, Jieli Liu, Dan Lin, Jiajing Wu, Baoying Huang, Quanzhong Li, and Zibin Zheng. Who stole my NFT? investigating web3 NFT phishing scams on Ethereum. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (TIFS) , 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Machine learning-based detection of pump-and-dump schemes in real-time.IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) , 2025

    Manuel Bolz, Kevin Bründler, Liam Kane, Panagiotis Patsias, Liam Tessendorf, Krzysztof Gogol, Taehoon Kim, and Claudio Tessone. Machine learning-based detection of pump-and-dump schemes in real-time.IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) , 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Cryptocurrency in the aftermath: Unveiling the impact of the SVB collapse

    Qin Wang, Guangsheng Yu, and Shiping Chen. Cryptocurrency in the aftermath: Unveiling the impact of the SVB collapse. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (TCSS), 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    EIP-4444: Bound historical data in execution clients (stagnant)

    Kadianakis George, lightclient, and Stokes Alex. EIP-4444: Bound historical data in execution clients (stagnant). Retrieved by May 2025, https:// eips.ethereum.or g/ EI PS/eip-4444, 2021

    2025

  38. [46]

    Is LLM a reliable reviewer? a comprehensive evaluation of LLM on automatic paper reviewing tasks

    Ruiyang Zhou, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. Is LLM a reliable reviewer? a comprehensive evaluation of LLM on automatic paper reviewing tasks. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 9340–9351, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Can LLM replace stack overflow? a study on robustness and reliability of large language model code generation

    Li Zhong and Zilong Wang. Can LLM replace stack overflow? a study on robustness and reliability of large language model code generation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , volume 38, pages 21841– 21849, 2024. A LLM PROMPT EXAMPLE 14 Listin...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Disregard structured tokens unless they contribute to the emotional tone

    Focus on the natural language content. Disregard structured tokens unless they contribute to the emotional tone

  41. [49]

    Identify the most appropriate emotion label (e.g., ’Positive-Joy’) using the taxonomy provided below

  42. [50]

    \"\"{message}\

    For that label, also provide: - An intensity score (1–10), reflecting the strength of emotional expression. - A confidence score (0.0–1.0), reflecting your certainty in the label assignment. Note: When evaluating emojis, consider them only if they support coherent emotional me...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.