• Home
  • Search
  • Heuristics Analyses of Smart Contracts Bytecodes and Their Classifications
  • https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics15010041Copy DOI Icon

Heuristics Analyses of Smart Contracts Bytecodes and Their Classifications

Show More
  • Abstract
  • Literature Map
  • Similar Papers
Abstract

Smart contracts are deployed and represented as bytecodes in blockchain networks, and these bytecodes are machine-readable codes. Only a small number of deployed smart contracts have their verified human-readable code publicly accessible to blockchain users. To improve the understandability of deployed smart contracts, we explored rule-based classification of smart contracts using iterative integration of fingerprints of relevant function interfaces and keywords. Our classification system included categories for standard contracts such as ERC20, ERC721, and ERC1155, and non-standard contracts like FinDApps, cross-chain, governance, and proxy. To do this, we first identified the core function fingerprints for all ERC token contracts. We then used an adapted header extractor tool to verify that these fingerprints occurred in all of the implemented functions within the bytecode. For the non-standard contracts, we took an iterative approach, identifying contract interfaces and relevant fingerprints for each specific category. To classify these contracts, we created a rule that required at least two occurrences of a relevant fingerprint keyword or interface. This rule was stricter for standard contracts: the 100% occurrence requirement ensures that we only identify compliant token contracts. For non-standard contracts, we required a minimum of two relevant fingerprint occurrences to prevent hash collisions and the unintentional use of keywords. After developing the classifier, we evaluated its performance on sample datasets. The classifier performed very well, achieving an F1 score of over 99% for standard contracts and a solid 93% for non-standard contracts. We also conducted a risk analysis to identify potential vulnerabilities that could reduce the classifier’s performance, including hash collisions, an incomplete rule set, manual verification bottlenecks, outdated data, and semantic misdirection or obfuscation of smart contract functions. To address these risks, we proposed several solutions: continuous monitoring, continuous data crawling, and extended rule refinement. The classifier’s modular design allows for these manual updates to be easily integrated. While semantic-based risks cannot be completely eliminated, symbolic execution can be used to verify the expected behavior of ERC token contract functions with a given set of inputs to identify malicious contracts. Lastly, we applied the classifier on contracts deployed Ethereum main network.

Similar Papers
  • Research Article
  • Citations4

Smart Contractsas Techno-Legal Regulation

  • Jan 01, 2019
  • Journal of ICT Standardization
  • Peter Gl Hunn
  • Research Article
  • Citations156

Ethereum Smart Contract Analysis Tools: A Systematic Review

  • Jan 01, 2022
  • IEEE Access
  • Satpal Singh Kushwaha +4
  • Conference Article
  • Citations12

BETA-UAV: Blockchain-based Efficient and Trusted Authentication for UAV Communication

  • Nov 11, 2022
  • Sana Hafeez +5
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations19

An Efficient Vulnerability Detection Model for Ethereum Smart Contracts

  • Jan 01, 2019
  • Jingjing Song +5
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations19

Connected Blockchain Federations for Sharing Electronic Health Records

  • Sep 16, 2022
  • Cryptography
  • Faiza Hashim +2
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations9

Systematic Mapping of Testing Smart Contracts for Blockchain Applications

  • Jan 01, 2022
  • IEEE Access
  • Nicholas Paul Imperius +1
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations69

Combating Health Care Fraud and Abuse: Conceptualization and Prototyping Study of a Blockchain Antifraud Framework

  • Sep 10, 2020
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research
  • Tim Ken Mackey +4
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations20

Verifying Solidity Smart Contracts via Communication Abstraction in SmartACE

  • Jan 01, 2022
  • Scott Wesley +5
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations49

Smart Contract Invocation Protocol (SCIP): A Protocol for the Uniform Integration of Heterogeneous Blockchain Smart Contracts

  • Jan 01, 2020
  • Advanced Information Systems Engineering
  • Ghareeb Falazi +5
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations2

Decentralized energy trading systems for microgrids using blockchain and smart contract technologies

  • Dec 05, 2024
  • Journal of the Ghana Institution of Engineering (JGhIE)
  • Ernest O Ezugwu +5
  • Conference Article
  • Citations270

Learning to Fuzz from Symbolic Execution with Application to Smart Contracts

  • Nov 06, 2019
  • Jingxuan He +4
  • Research Article

Smart Contracts towards Reducing Disputes in Construction Projects in Egypt

  • Aug 01, 2025
  • IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
  • N Nada +1
  • Research Article

Blockchain Business Model and Security

  • Jun 30, 2023
  • International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology
  • Dharmik Gangani +1
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations14

A DDoS Attack Defense Method Based on Blockchain for IoTs Devices

  • Jan 01, 2020
  • Meizhu Chen +5
  • Conference Article
  • Citations7

Smart Contract execution costs optimisation on blockchain network

  • May 23, 2022
  • D Ceke +2
Cactus Communications logo

Copyright 2026 Cactus Communications. All rights reserved.