Step by Step Towards Creating a Safe Smart Contract: Lessons and Insights from a Cryptocurrency Lab

By Kevin Delmolino, Mitchell Arnett, Ahmed E. Kosba, Andrew K. Miller, Elaine Shi. 2016

529 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems, Management Information Systems

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Information Systems

In Management Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Ekiden: A Platform for Confidentiality-Preserving, Trustworthy, and Performant Smart Contracts (2018, positive): “Good on-chain randomness is challenging to obtain in blockchain systems, its lack often causing smart-contract vulnerabilities [26].”
When Blockchain Meets Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review on Current Development and Potential Applications (2020, background): “For example, contract vulnerabilities with regard to transaction-ordering and times-tamp dependence, mishandled exceptions, re-entrance, and callstack issues [39].”
A supply chain traceability system for food safety based on HACCP, blockchain & Internet of things (2017, background): “The program code of a contract is fixed when the contract is created, and can not be changed[16].”
MadMax: surviving out-of-gas conditions in Ethereum smart contracts (2018, background): “Various exploits have been broadly identified in the literature [Atzei et al. 2016; Bartoletti et al. 2017; Delmolino et al. 2015; Sergey and Hobor 2017]: exploits related to Solidity, the EVM and the blockchain itself.”
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms (2019, unknown): “The work of [16] reports authors’ experiences in teaching smart contract programming and summarizes several typical types of mistakes made by students.”
Blockchain technology innovations (2017, methodology): “Utilization of the Smart Contracts [12],[13] insures that the patient can only create the initial version of PHI and load it onto the Blockchain.”
teEther: Gnawing at Ethereum to Automatically Exploit Smart Contracts (2018, background): “[19] describe several pitfalls that can lead to logic flaws in smart contracts.”
Making Smart Contracts Smarter (2016, methodology): “We propose reﬁne-ments to Ethereum’s protocol that do not require changes to existing smart contracts.”
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection (2018, background): “Delmolino et al. [4] showed that there could be a lot of logical problems in even a tiny smart contract.”
Blockchain-based Smart Contracts: A Systematic Mapping Study (2017, background): “The first one is the difficulty of writing correct smart contracts [8,16,1718].”
A Survey on Ethereum Systems Security (2019, methodology): “A possible solution to preventing this vulnerability is to use cryptographic techniques, such as timed commitments [56], [12].”
Survey on blockchain based smart contracts: Applications, opportunities and challenges (2021, methodology): “• Specialized testing frameworks [258] • Automated software testing • AI powered software testing • Improved software practices [259],[260] • Specialized bug detection tools [261], [262] , [263] • Bug classification [48]”
Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contracts: Architecture, Applications, and Future Trends (2019, background): “Once this limit is exceeded, an exception will be thrown [43].”
Securify: Practical Security Analysis of Smart Contracts (2018, methodology): “[31] document the kinds of vulnerabilities students introduce while writing smart contracts and propose methods on how to avoid common pitfalls.”
ReGuard: Finding Reentrancy Bugs in Smart Contracts (2018, background): “Delmolino et al. show that even a rather simple smart contract ( e.g. , "Rock, Paper, Scissors") may lead to various kinds of flaws [6].”