A Large-Scale Bitcoin Abuse Measurement and Clustering Analysis Utilizing Public Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrency abuse has become a critical problem. Due to the anonymous nature of cryptocurrency, criminals commonly adopt cryptocurrency for trading drugs and deceiving people without revealing their identities. Despite its significance and severity, only few works have studied how cryptocurrency has been abused in the real world, and they only provide some limited measurement results. Thus, to provide a more in-depth understanding on the cryptocurrency abuse cases, we present a large-scale analysis on various Bitcoin abuse types using 200,507 real-world reports collected by victims from 214 countries. We scrutinize observable abuse trends, which are closely related to real-world incidents, to understand the causality of the abuses. Furthermore, we investigate the semantics of various cryptocurrency abuse types to show that several abuse types overlap in meaning and to provide valuable insight into the public dataset. In addition, we delve into abuse channels to identify which widely-known platforms can be maliciously deployed by abusers following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. Consequently, we demonstrate the polarization property of Bitcoin addresses practically utilized on transactions, and confirm the possible usage of public report data for providing clues to track cyber threats. We expect that this research on Bitcoin abuse can empirically reach victims more effectively than cybercrime, which is subject to professional investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".