Statistical Analysis to Bitcoin Transactions Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is abundantly documented scientific evidence that the financial transactions that have grown rapidly recently, in conjuction with the interest of the public, were due to the sharp rise in the price of Bitcoin in December 2017. As a consequence, a freshly emerging dataset in the research community has emerged. Therefore, the aim of the present investigation was to examine the analyses of data in this newly emerging dataset in the research community. In order to achieve the extraction of data, their conversion to network and finally their fragmentation, the studied variables were analyzed by using two parts of analysis, namely, statistical network analyses and economic activity analyses. Network statistical analyses was employed aiming to analyze, in a holistic approach, the complex systems of modern times which are represented as networks, as it is impossible to analyze them partially, in order to avoid incorrect conclusions. Additionally, the analyses of economic activity, which is related to indicators from the stock market and the economics of science, was used, after it had been transferred and matched with the economic model represented by Bitcoin. The results distinguished the extent of the data generated by the statistical analyses of the networks and the analyses of economic activity. With respect to data presented, we established that the daily transaction networks were scale free networks which were not evolving like ER random networks and they were not defined as the small world. Also, it was demonstrated that daily transaction networks cannot be reproduced in a random way like ER random networks. Furthermore, the opportunities and problems encountered in conducting the present research were briefly presented.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".