2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2102.05373
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GuiltyWalker: Distance to illicit nodes in the Bitcoin network

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To construct graph features on the data, the authors treat accounts as nodes and transactions as directed edges. Results indicate that the inclusion of Guilty-Walker features [81], using random walks to capture the distances between a given node and illicit nodes, increases model performance.…”
Section: A Unsupervised Suspicious Behavior Flaggingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To construct graph features on the data, the authors treat accounts as nodes and transactions as directed edges. Results indicate that the inclusion of Guilty-Walker features [81], using random walks to capture the distances between a given node and illicit nodes, increases model performance.…”
Section: A Unsupervised Suspicious Behavior Flaggingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lorenz et al [18] proposed active learning techniques to study the minimum number of tags necessary to achieve high detection and test their illegal activity datasets. In addition, Alarab et al [19] presented an integrated learning method using a given combination of supervised learning models and applied it to the elliptic dataset, improving the baseline results. Jensen et al [20] used gated recurrent units and a self-attention model, which can reduce the number of false positives when qualifying alarms.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…that were used in their classification model as exchange addresses that are possibly involved in money laundering/Bitcoin mixing. Oliveira et al (2021) proposed GuiltyWalker, a method that performs random walks on a Bitcoin address network and extracts features based on the distance from illicit nodes. Subsequently, they used the graph features along with other static ones to classify the addresses as illicit or not.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such approaches typically analyse Bitcoin transactions by extracting several features aiming to determine whether they are related to criminal actions. The majority of existing methods employ classification models to infer whether an address is involved in illicit activities by extracting static features, i.e., without considering the evolution over time (Oliveira et al 2021;Ranshous et al 2017;Toyoda et al 2017;Yang et al 2022). In particular, most commonly, the whole timeline of transactions related to an address is summarised into static features; for example, the transaction volume of an address over the whole activity duration is typically summarised into a single value (Farrugia et al 2020;Lin et al 2019;Toyoda et al 2017Toyoda et al , 2018aToyoda et al , 2019.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%