Cited by 186Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityCryptography and Data SecurityDistributed systems and fault tolerance

Misbehavior in Bitcoin: A Study of Double-Spending and Accountability

Karame, Ghassan O., Androulaki, Elli, Roeschlin, Marc, Gervais, Arthur, Čapkun, Srdjan·2015·ACM Transactions on Information and System Security

Abstract

Bitcoin is a decentralized payment system that relies on Proof-of-Work (PoW) to resist double-spending through a distributed timestamping service. To ensure the operation and security of Bitcoin, it is essential that all transactions and their order of execution are available to all Bitcoin users. Unavoidably, in such a setting, the security of transactions comes at odds with transaction privacy. Motivated by the fact that transaction confirmation in Bitcoin requires tens of minutes, we analyze the conditions for performing successful double-spending attacks against fast payments in Bitcoin, where the time between the exchange of currency and goods is short (in the order of a minute). We show that unless new detection techniques are integrated in the Bitcoin implementation, double-spending attacks on fast payments succeed with considerable probability and can be mounted at low cost. We propose a new and lightweight countermeasure that enables the detection of double-spending attacks in fast transactions. In light of such misbehavior, accountability becomes crucial. We show that in the specific case of Bitcoin, accountability complements privacy. To illustrate this tension, we provide accountability and privacy definition for Bitcoin, and we investigate analytically and empirically the privacy and accountability provisions in Bitcoin.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2732196

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The open nature of the Bitcoin blockchain means no single node can be held accountable due to its distributed nature.

    “This is fostered by the open nature of the Bitcoin blockchain where no single node can be held accountable due to its distributed nature [5,6].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karame, G. O., Androulaki, E., Roeschlin, M., Gervais, A., & Čapkun, S.
Affiliations
  • NEC (Germany) (DE)
  • IBM Research - Zurich (CH)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Venue
ACM Transactions on Information and System Security
Published
2015-05-27
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
1-32
ISSN
  • 1094-9224 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7406
OpenAlex
W1444567531
Cited by
186
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
40.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
Keywords
Bitcoin, double-spending attacks, transaction privacy, accountability, proof-of-work, transaction confirmation, countermeasures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review