Securing cryptocurrency transactions: Innovations in malware detection using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrencies are crucial in modern commerce and finance, whether at the national, corporate, or individual level. They serve as fundamental currencies for buying and selling, enabling various business transactions. However, the rise of cybercrime has brought about concerns regarding their operations, potential breaches in encrypted currencies, and the security systems managing them. The frequency of attack tactics and the motivation of attackers seeking financial gain are well-known. Many cryptocurrencies lack the necessary algorithms, techniques, and knowledge to effectively detect and mitigate malware, making them vulnerable targets for hackers. In this study, machine learning techniques are employed to detect malicious code in digital currencies. Additionally, a comparison of these techniques is conducted to determine the most suitable algorithm and technology, Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of effective malware detection in securing cryptocurrencies. Three datasets of different sizes were used, each yielding distinct results based on dataset size. The AdaBoost model demonstrated superior performance when applied to the short dataset, while the decision tree model performed best with the medium-sized dataset. Conversely, the Naive Bayes model consistently produced the worst results, while the large-size KNN model achieved the highest performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".