MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896971538 · doi:10.1109/pst.2017.00057

Alice in Blockchains: Surprising Security Pitfalls in PoW and PoS Blockchain Systems

2017· article· en· W2896971538 on OpenAlex
Thomas P. Keenan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainComputer securityComputer scienceCompromiseReputationRisk analysis (engineering)Internet privacyBusinessLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If, as most experts agree, the mathematical basis of major blockchain systems is (probably if not provably) sound, why do they have a bad reputation? Human misbehavior (such as failed Bitcoin exchanges) accounts for some of the issues, but there are also deeper and more interesting vulnerabilities here. These include design faults and code-level implementation defects, ecosystem issues (such as wallets), as well as approaches such as the "51% attack" all of which can compromise the integrity of blockchain systems. With particular attention to the emerging non-financial applications of blockchain technology, this paper demonstrates the kinds of attacks that are possible and provides suggestions for minimizing the risks involved.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it