Are GNNs the Right Tool to Mine the Blockchain? The Case of the Bitcoin Generator Scam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Bitcoin Generator Scam (BGS) is a type of cyberattack in which scammers promise to provide individuals with free cryptocurrencies if they pay a mining fee. Although graph neural networks (GNNs) have been used for detecting other cryptocurrency frauds, the usefulness of these methods for BGS detection has not been studied. In this paper, we carry out extensive experiments to assess the use of both standard machine learning (ML) methods and GNNs to detect Bitcoin transactions associated with activities stemming from Bitcoin Generator Scams. We observe that the over-smoothing problem exists in GNNs designed for BGS detection and show that Random Walk Positional Encoding (RWPE) allows representing long-range interactions between far-away transactions in GNNs without causing over-smoothing. We show that the General, Powerful, Scalable (GPS) Graph Transformer with RWPE outperforms both GNN and ML based state-of-the-art fraud detection methods in Bitcoin Generator Scams. We also analyze the effectiveness of Breadth First Search (BFS) for graph sampling and show that it should not be used as it induces bias toward the subnetwork structure. We propose the Random First Search (RFS) sampling alternative and show that this is a more suitable solution.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".