Security Analysis and Formal Verification on Blockchain and its Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchains have become an integrated part of our finance infrastructures. Being monetary yet fully automated, blockchains and their applications are unanimously deemed impracticable before undergoing necessary verification. This monograph reviews the previous attempts at verifying two fundamental properties of blockchains: correctness (where flaws lead to unintentional damages) and security (where vulnerabilities incur attacks and losses). First, it summarizes and categorizes the correctness and security flaws encountered by real-world blockchains. Second, it systematizes the development of formal verification to address the flaws in blockchains, covering the aspects of models, specifications, and techniques. Third, it unveils the progress of security analysis for mitigating the flaws, unveiling the analysis principles being followed, the flaw oracles being devised, and the detection methods being used. Finally, it summarizes the challenges remaining to be addressed, followed by our vision of the trend in the near future. Throughout this monograph, we anticipate shedding light on future blockchain verification advances, especially in expanding its applicability, making specification generation easier, and discovering previously unknown vulnerabilities. By identifying gaps such as missing tools for infrastructure-level components and the difficulty of writing formal specifications, this work aims to motivate the development of more automated, intelligent, and practical verification frameworks.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it