Mixing detection on Bitcoin transactions using statistical patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, have garnered attention for their potential in anonymous transactions. However, their anonymity has often been compromised by deanonymization attacks. To counter this, mixing services have been introduced. While they enhance privacy, they obscure fund traceability. This study seeks to demystify transactions linked to these services, shedding light on pathways of concealed and laundered money. We propose a method to identify and classify transactions and addresses of major mixing services in Bitcoin. Unlike previous research focusing on older techniques like CoinJoin, we emphasize modern mixing services. We gathered labelled data by transacting with three prominent mixers (MixTum, Blemder, and CryptoMixer) and identified recurring patterns. Using these patterns, an algorithm was created to pinpoint mixing transactions and distinguish mixer‐related addresses. The algorithm achieved a remarkable recall rate of 100%. Given the lack of clear ground truth and the vast number of unlabelled transactions, ensuring accuracy was a challenge. However, by analyzing a set of non‐mixing transactions with our model, it was confirmed that the high recall rate was not misleading. This work provides a significant advancement in monitoring mixing transactions, presenting a valuable tool against fraud and money laundering in cryptocurrency networks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".