Large Language Models for Cryptocurrency Transaction Analysis: A Bitcoin Case Study
Authors: Yuchen Lei, Yuexin Xiang, Rafael Dowsley, Tsz Hon Yuen, Andreas Deppeler, Jiangshan Yu, Qin Wang, Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo
Organizations: School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China · Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia · CSIRO’s Data61, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia · School of Computer Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia · Department of Information Systems and Cybersecurity, University of Texas at San Antonio, TX 78249-0631, USA
Cryptocurrencies are widely used, yet current methods for analyzing transactions often rely on opaque, black-box models. While these models may achieve high performance, their outputs are usually difficult to interpret and adapt, making it challenging to capture nuanced behavioral patterns. Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to address these gaps, but their capabilities in this area remain largely unexplored, particularly in cybercrime detection. In this paper, we test this hypothesis by applying LLMs to real-world cryptocurrency transaction graphs, with a focus on Bitcoin, one of the most studied and widely adopted blockchain networks. We introduce a three-tiered framework to assess LLM capabilities: foundational metrics, characteristic overview, and contextual interpretation. This includes a new, human-readable graph representation format, LLM4TG, and a connectivity-enhanced transaction graph sampling algorithm, CETraS. Together, they significantly reduce token requirements, transforming the analysis of multiple moderately large-scale transaction graphs with LLMs from nearly impossible to feasible under strict token limits. Experimental results demonstrate that LLMs have outstanding performance on foundational metrics and characteristic overview, where the accuracy of recognizing most basic information at the node level exceeds 98.50% and the proportion of obtaining meaningful characteristics reaches 95.00%. Regarding contextual interpretation, LLMs also demonstrate strong performance in classification tasks, even with very limited labeled data, where top-3 accuracy reaches 72.43% with explanations. While the explanations are not always fully accurate, they highlight the strong potential of LLMs in this domain. At the same time, several limitations persist, which we discuss along with directions for future research.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : LLM evaluation framework for Bitcoin transaction
Metrics
GPT-4
GPT-4o
struct_correctness
80.00%
100.00%
global_in_degree
50.00%
44.00%
global_out_degree
50.00%
58.00%
global_in_value
37.50%
56.00%
global_out_value
35.00%
48.00%
global_diff_degree
27.50%
34.00%
TABLE I : LLM Capability on foundational metrics
Metric
GPT-4
GPT-4o
High-quality
62.50%
82.50%
\vbox\vruleheight=0.0pt,width=0.0ptAvg-quality{
Total
26.25%
13.75%
Flawed
7.50%
12.50%
Irrelevant
18.75%
1.25%
Low-quality
11.25%
3.75%
Meaningful
70.00%
95.00%
TABLE II : LLM capability on characteristic overview
Fig. 2 : Examples with features
Fig. 3 : Classification via different LLMs. The x-axis indicates LLM models and the y-axis indicates percentage (%). The five bars represent accuracy, top-3 accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, respectively.
Fig. 4 : LLMs’ performance in contextual interpretation using graph features (x axis for category, y for rate (%); GPT-3.5 in blue bar, GPT-4 in red, GPT-4o in brown, DeepSeek in gray).
Fig. 5 : LLMs’ performance in contextual interpretation using raw graphs (x axis for category, y for rate (%); GPT-4 in red, GPT-4o in brown, DeepSeek in gray).
Fig. 6 : Evaluation on different models (x axis for category, y for corresponding rates (%))
GPT-4o
LLaMA
DeepSeek
Metrics
LLM4TG
GEXF
GML
GraphML
LLM4TG
GEXF
GML
GraphML
LLM4TG
GEXF
GML
GraphML
struct_correctness
100.00%
95.83%
95.83%
100.00%
100.00%
87.50%
95.83%
87.50%
100.00%
95.83%
91.67%
95.83%
global_in_degree
41.67%
78.26%
78.26%
75.00%
54.17%
71.43%
69.57%
76.19%
50.00%
69.57%
50.00%
60.87%
global_out_degree
62.50%
60.87%
56.52%
54.17%
50.00%
71.43%
73.91%
76.19%
58.33%
47.83%
36.36%
39.13%
global_in_value
54.17%
30.43%
52.17%
25.00%
33.33%
33.33%
21.74%
47.62%
45.83%
56.52%
45.45%
47.83%
global_out_value
25.00%
26.09%
30.43%
25.00%
45.83%
9.52%
8.70%
19.05%
37.50%
26.09%
22.73%
26.09%
TABLE III : LLM capability on foundational metrics across graph formats and models
Fig. 7 : Token consumption in different graph formats
School of Computer Science Peking University Beijing, PA 100871 · Taiyuan University of Technology Taiyuan, Shanxi, PA 030024 · Peking University Beijing, PA 100871