Misbehavior in Bitcoin: A Study of Double-Spending and Accountability
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Tribal Governance: The Business of Blockchain Authentication (2018) · cites this paper as [5]
Cites
Zerocoin: Anonymous Distributed E-Cash from Bitcoin
Miers, I., Garman, C., Green, M., & Rubin, A. D. (2013) · 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/sp.2013.34 · Cited by 983 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bitcoin and beyond: a technical survey on decentralized digital currencies
Tschorsch, F., & Scheuermann, B. (2016) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2016.2535718 · Cited by 1,690 · see citing works
A Survey on Security and Privacy Issues of Bitcoin
Conti, M., Sandeep Kumar, E., Lal, C., & Ruj, S. (2018) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2018.2842460 · Cited by 1,116 · see citing works
A survey of blockchain from the perspectives of applications, challenges, and opportunities
Monrat, A. A., Schelen, O., & Andersson, K. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2936094 · Cited by 1,077 · see citing works
The Quest for Scalable Blockchain Fabric: Proof-of-Work vs. BFT Replication
Vukolić, M. (2016) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39028-4_9 · Cited by 1,051 · see citing works
Bhushan, B., Khamparia, A., Sagayam, K. M., Sharma, S. K., Ahad, M. A., & Debnath, N. C. (2020) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102360 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Corking by Forking: Vulnerability Analysis of Blockchain
Wang, S., Wang, C., & Hu, Q. (2019) · IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications · doi:10.1109/infocom.2019.8737490 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Tribal Governance: The Business of Blockchain Authentication
Miscione, G., Ziolkowski, R., Zavolokina, L., & Schwabe, G. (2018) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.566 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- 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