Efficiency Without Security Trade-off: Statistically Validated Cryptographic Hash Selection for Ethereum Fraud Detection

Ahmad Dani; Wildanil Ghozi; Ramadhan Rakhmat Sani; Fauzi Adi Rafrastara

doi:10.30871/jaic.v10i4.13484

Authors

Ahmad Dani Informatics Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
Wildanil Ghozi Informatics Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
Ramadhan Rakhmat Sani Information System, Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
Fauzi Adi Rafrastara Informatics Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30871/jaic.v10i4.13484

Keywords:

Cryptographic Hash Function, Ethereum Fraud Detection, Hash Algorithm Benchmarking, Avalanche Effect, Multi-Criteria Ranking

Abstract

Cryptographic hash functions form the preprocessing layer of Ethereum fraud detection pipelines, yet prior research evaluated hash performance and fraud detection as separate concerns, leaving practitioners without evidence-based guidance for selecting an algorithm that balances speed, energy efficiency, and cryptographic security. This study benchmarks SHA-256, SHA3-256, BLAKE2s-256, and BLAKE3 on a stratified sample of 6,396 fraud-labeled transactions from a public 9,841-record Ethereum dataset, measuring execution time, throughput, energy consumption, and avalanche effect. Its novelty is, to the best of our knowledge, the first inferential validation, on real fraud-labeled data, that the four algorithms are cryptographically equivalent in diffusion strength—combining non-parametric testing (Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis) with formal two one-sided equivalence tests (TOST) and replicating the result on an independent 454,289-transaction dataset—establishing that selection can be decided on efficiency grounds alone without sacrificing security. BLAKE2s-256 achieved the lowest execution time (0.65 µs), highest throughput (≈1.54 million ops/s), and lowest energy (0.029 mJ/op), while all algorithms converged near the 50% avalanche ideal with no significant security difference (H = 3.03, p = 0.387). BLAKE2s-256 attained the highest composite score (99.98/100) and, in an end-to-end pipeline test, improved batch screening throughput by up to 11.5%, confirming it as optimal for off-chain Ethereum fraud-detection preprocessing on processors without SHA hardware acceleration.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] D. Upadhyay, N. Gaikwad, M. Zaman, and S. Sampalli, “Investigating the Avalanche Effect of Various Cryptographically Secure Hash Functions and Hash-Based Applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 112472–112486, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3215778.

[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), “Secure hash standard,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Washington, D.C., NIST FIPS 180-4, 2015. doi: 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4.

[3] O. Kuznetsov, A. Rusnak, A. Yezhov, D. Kanonik, K. Kuznetsova, and S. Karashchuk, “Enhanced Security and Efficiency in Blockchain with Aggregated Zero-Knowledge Proof Mechanisms,” IEEE Access, pp. 1–1, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384705.

[4] M. Ul Hassan, M. H. Rehmani, and J. Chen, “Anomaly Detection in Blockchain Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 289–318, 2023, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2022.3205643.

[5] “2023 Cryptocurrency Fraud Report Released,” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed: Jun. 30, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2023-cryptocurrency-fraud-report-released

[6] J. Coker, “Over $1bn in Cryptocurrency Lost to Web3 Cyber Incidents in 2024,” Infosecurity Magazine. Accessed: Jun. 30, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/crypto-lost-web3-cyber-incidents/

[7] “Hack3d: The Web3 Security Report 2024 - CertiK.” Accessed: Jul. 06, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.certik.com/blog/hack3d-the-web3-security-report-2024

[8] “Hack3d: The Web3 Security Quarterly Report - Q2 + H1 2025 - CertiK.” Accessed: Jul. 06, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.certik.com/blog/hack3d-the-web3-security-quarterly-report-q2-h1-2025

[9] R. M. Aziz, M. F. Baluch, S. Patel, and A. H. Ganie, “LGBM: a machine learning approach for Ethereum fraud detection,” Int. j. inf. tecnol., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 3321–3331, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s41870-022-00864-6.

[10] F. G. Abdiwi, “Detection of Digital Currency Fraud through a Distributed Database Approach and Machine Learning Model,” TEM Journal, pp. 3025–3039, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.18421/TEM134-37.

[11] T. Ashfaq et al., “A Machine Learning and Blockchain Based Efficient Fraud Detection Mechanism,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 19, p. 7162, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22197162.

[12] A. Sevin and A. A. Osman Mohammed, “Comparative Study of Blockchain Hashing Algorithms with a Proposal for HashLEA,” Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 24, p. 11967, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.3390/app142411967.

[13] T.-G. Sorescu, V.-M. Chiriac, M.-A. Stoica, C.-R. Comsa, I.-G. Soroaga, and A. Contac, “Comparative Performance Analysis of Lightweight Cryptographic Algorithms on Resource-Constrained IoT Platforms,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 18, p. 5887, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25185887.

[14] I. Radhakrishnan, S. Jadon, and P. B. Honnavalli, “Efficiency and Security Evaluation of Lightweight Cryptographic Algorithms for Resource-Constrained IoT Devices,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 12, p. 4008, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24124008.

[15] Q. Umer, J.-W. Li, M. R. Ashraf, R. N. Bashir, and H. Ghous, “Ensemble Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Fraudulent Cryptocurrency Transactions,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 95213–95224, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3310576.

[16] R. Vaughn and M. Borowczak, “Strict Avalanche Criterion of SHA-256 and Sub-Function-Removed Variants,” Cryptography, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 40, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.3390/cryptography8030040.

[17] I. D. A. Purimahua, S. A. Wibowo, and Y. Purwanto, “BLAKE3 and SHA-512 Combination Performances Analysis in Blockchain Mechanism and Optimization Smart Contract on D’Apps,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Intelligent Systems, and IoT (ICONS-IoT), Bandung, Indonesia: IEEE, Aug. 2025, pp. 158–163. doi: 10.1109/ICONS-IoT65216.2025.11211127.

[18] S. Thakur, S. Banik, and F. Regazzoni, “Energy Analysis of Cryptographic Algorithms in Server Environment,” in Proceedings of the 2024 on Cloud Computing Security Workshop, Salt Lake City UT USA: ACM, Nov. 2024, pp. 3–14. doi: 10.1145/3689938.3694775.

[19] A. C. H. Chen, “Report on Hash Algorithm Performance ─ A Case Study of Cryptocurrency Exchanges Based on Blockchain System,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Data Intelligence and Cognitive Informatics (ICDICI), Tirunelveli, India: IEEE, Nov. 2024, pp. 30–35. doi: 10.1109/ICDICI62993.2024.10810832.

[20] R. M. Aziz, M. F. Baluch, S. Patel, and P. Kumar, “A Machine Learning based Approach to Detect the Ethereum Fraud Transactions with Limited Attributes,” Karbala International Journal of Modern Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 139–151, May 2022, doi: 10.33640/2405-609X.3229.

[21] M. Horro, L.-N. Pouchet, G. RodriDguez, and J. Tourino, “MARTA: Multi-configuration Assembly pRofiler and Toolkit for performance Analysis,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), Singapore, Singapore: IEEE, May 2022, pp. 79–89. doi: 10.1109/ISPASS55109.2022.00008.

[22] M. Al-Zubaidie, “Implication of Lightweight and Robust Hash Function to Support Key Exchange in Health Sensor Networks,” Symmetry, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 152, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/sym15010152.

[23] E. M. Horra, A. M. Beyene, and S. Y. Techan, “Enhanced Avalanche Effect Analysis Algorithm Considering both Single and Double Key Pair RSA Algorithms,” Mar. 20, 2024, In Review. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4113962/v1.

[24] D. Chicco, A. Sichenze, and G. Jurman, “A simple guide to the use of Student’s t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test, and Kruskal-Wallis test in biostatistics,” BioData Mining, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 56, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1186/s13040-025-00465-6.

[25] N. G. Zinabu, Y. W. Marye, K. K. Tune, and S. A. Demilew, “Comprehensive Analysis of Lightweight Cryptographic Algorithms for Battery‐Limited Internet of Things Devices,” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2025, no. 1, p. 9639728, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1155/dsn/9639728.

[26] National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), “SHA-3 standard : permutation-based hash and extendable-output functions,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Washington, D.C., NIST FIPS 202, 2015. doi: 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.202.

[27] H. L. Pham, T. H. Tran, V. T. Duong Le, and N. Yasuhiko, “Flexible and Scalable BLAKE/BLAKE2 Coprocessor for Blockchain-Based IoT Applications,” IEEE Des. Test, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 15–25, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1109/MDAT.2023.3276936.

[28] X. Zou, Y. Peng, T. Li, L. Kong, Z. Pang, and L. Zhang, “Accelerating Blake3 in RISC-V,” in 2023 2nd International Conference on Computing, Communication, Perception and Quantum Technology (CCPQT), Xiamen, China: IEEE, Aug. 2023, pp. 296–301. doi: 10.1109/CCPQT60491.2023.00057.

[29] N. M. Chacko, V. G. Narendra, M. Balachandra, and S. Rathinam, “Exploring IoT-Blockchain Integration in Agriculture: An Experimental Study,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 130439–130450, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3334726.

[30] M. O. Okoye, J. Yang, J. Cui, A. Hussain, van-H. Bui, and D. Espin-Sarzosa, “Optimizing the Transaction Latency in the Blockchain-Integrated Energy-Trading Platform in the Standalone Renewable Distributed Generation Arena,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 111970–111981, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3414966.

[31] A. Dolmeta, M. Martina, and G. Masera, “Comparative Study of Keccak SHA-3 Implementations,” Cryptography, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 60, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.3390/cryptography7040060.

[32] Y. K. Sanjalawe and S. R. Al-E’mari, “Abnormal Transactions Detection in the Ethereum Network Using Semi-Supervised Generative Adversarial Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 98516–98531, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3313630.

[33] S. S. Kushwaha, S. Joshi, D. Singh, M. Kaur, and H.-N. Lee, “Systematic Review of Security Vulnerabilities in Ethereum Blockchain Smart Contract,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 6605–6621, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3140091.

[34] T. H. Pranto, K. T. A. Md. Hasib, T. Rahman, A. B. Haque, A. K. M. N. Islam, and R. M. Rahman, “Blockchain and Machine Learning for Fraud Detection: A Privacy-Preserving and Adaptive Incentive Based Approach,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 87115–87134, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3198956.

[35] J. Jancar et al., “‘They’re not that hard to mitigate’: What Cryptographic Library Developers Think About Timing Attacks,” in 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Francisco, CA, USA: IEEE, May 2022, pp. 632–649. doi: 10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833713.

[36] G. Raffin and D. Trystram, “Dissecting the Software-Based Measurement of CPU Energy Consumption: A Comparative Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 96–107, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/TPDS.2024.3492336.

[37] M. Krichen, M. Lahami, and Q. A. Al-Haija, “Formal Methods for the Verification of Smart Contracts: A Review,” in 2022 15th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks (SIN), Sousse, Tunisia: IEEE, Nov. 2022, pp. 01–08. doi: 10.1109/SIN56466.2022.9970534.