Segmenting Bitcoin Transactions for Price Movement Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have received substantial attention from financial exchanges. Unfortunately, arbitrage-based financial market price prediction models are ineffective for cryptocurrencies. In this paper, we utilize standard machine learning models and publicly available transaction data in blocks to predict the direction of Bitcoin price movement. We illustrate our methodology using data we merged from the Bitcoin blockchain and various online sources. This gave us the Bitcoin transaction history (block IDs, block timestamps, transaction IDs, senders’ addresses, receivers’ addresses, transaction amounts), as well as the market exchange price, for the period from 13 September 2011 to 5 May 2017. We show that segmenting publicly available transactions based on investor typology helps achieve higher prediction accuracy compared to the existing Bitcoin price movement prediction models in the literature. This transaction segmentation highlights the role of investor types in impacting financial markets. Managerially, the segmentation of financial transactions helps us understand the role of financial and cryptocurrency market participants in asset price movements. These findings provide further implications for risk management, financial regulation, and investment strategies in this new era of digital currencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".