PONE-D-25-21867Mapping network structures and dynamics of decentralised cryptocurrencies: The evolution of Bitcoin (2009-2023)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Venturini,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

As per the review comments provided by the reviewer, you are advised to incorporate changes and submit the revised manuscript for consideration.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nishi Malhotra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements: 

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript "Mapping network structures and dynamics of decentralized cryptocurrencies: the evolution of Bitcoin (2009-2023)" is a well-crafted, comprehensive and thorough study that analyses the evolution of the Bitcoin transaction network from a network science perspective over fifteen years. The authors provide an exceptionally detailed analysis of the evolution of centralization, wealth concentration, and network structure, methodologically building on best practices while extending previous research.

Strengths:

The use of a complete blockchain dataset and its transparent processability (including available data for replication).

The longitudinal approach (annual snapshots) allows for tracking network evolution and trends over time.

Clear and consistent support for the rich-get-richer hypothesis and identification of three phases of development (Exploration, Adaptation, and Maturity).

The work is replicable, well documented and based on standard and credible metrics (degree distribution, Gini, assortativity, SCC/WCC, transitivity, etc.).

Minor modifications recommended:

Discussion of implications: The results are relevant to current debates on decentralization and regulation of cryptocurrencies. The discussion could be strengthened by a more critical reflection on these implications, especially in light of the endogenous concentration of power found.

Limitations section: The limitations of the paper (e.g., use of annual cross-sections, omission of subtle temporal fluctuations) merit their own clearer section.

Readability to a broader audience: PLOS ONE has a wide readership. Some terms, such as "transitivity index" and "weakly vs. strongly connected components", would benefit from a brief explanation.

Visualizations: Several figures (especially Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-6) deserve to be accompanied by more prominent captions or legends to be interpreted independently outside the main text.

Emphasis on originality: Although the paper refers to relevant literature (e.g., Kondor, Maesa), I recommend that it be made even more explicit what makes this paper different and pushes the boundaries of previous research.

Overall, this very high-quality study deserves to be published after minor additions. The authors have done an excellent job handling a huge dataset and presenting important conclusions for understanding the evolution of decentralized systems.

Reviewer #2: General Assessment:

This manuscript presents a comprehensive longitudinal analysis of the Bitcoin transaction network from 2009 to 2023. It is a valuable and technically sound contribution that extends previous work by nearly a decade and offers new insights into the structural evolution of the Bitcoin ecosystem. The division of the network's history into three evolutionary phases : Exploration, Adaptation, and Maturity, is well argued and supported by both empirical metrics and historical context.

Technical Soundness:

The study’s methodology is rigorous and replicable. The authors use a large, reliable dataset, implement appropriate filters (e.g., dust thresholds), and exclude irrelevant system artifacts. The definition of network graphs and use of weighted edges is clearly explained and justified. The segmentation of network snapshots into annual intervals helps capture dynamics without overgeneralizing.

Statistical and Network Analysis:

The network metrics (degree distributions, Gini coefficients, assortativity, clustering, and component analyses) are all appropriate and well supported. The rich-get-richer hypothesis is tested with clear methodology, consistent with prior work, and expanded to include updated data post-2015. The analysis of node persistence and inequality provides strong evidence of path dependency and centralisation.

Writing and Clarity:

The manuscript is well-written, logically organized, and accessible to both technical and interdisciplinary audiences. While the introduction includes some speculative references to political events (e.g., US presidential election), these do not undermine the scientific integrity of the analysis. Still, the authors may consider rephrasing these in a more neutral tone.

Data and Reproducibility:

The data availability is excellent. Public blockchain data is properly referenced, and the derived dataset is deposited with a DOI, fully meeting PLOS ONE's open data requirements.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Add a brief discussion of limitations regarding address-level analysis (e.g., address reuse, clustering heuristics).

Consider a diagram or figure to visualize the data pipeline from raw blockchain data to network construction.

Tidy up punctuation around compound terms and ensure consistent hyphenation and spacing (e.g., “Exploration, Adaptation and Maturity” - “Exploration, Adaptation, and Maturity”).

Clarify briefly how some of the early richest nodes were de-anonymized despite limited historic metadata.

Conclusion:

This is a strong, well-executed manuscript that provides valuable insights into Bitcoin’s structural evolution. With minor revisions, it will make a meaningful contribution to the literature on cryptocurrency networks and decentralisation.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shreya Macherla

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Mapping network structures and dynamics of decentralised cryptocurrencies: The evolution of Bitcoin (2009-2023)

PONE-D-25-21867R1

Dear Dr Nishi Malhotra 

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nishi Malhotra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I want to thank the authors for their high-quality and thorough revision of the manuscript. All comments have been addressed substantively – the discussion on the consequences of centralisation has been expanded, the study's limitations have been identified, and technical terms have been made accessible to a broader audience. I also appreciate the revision of the image captions and the more precise emphasis on the article's originality in relation to previous literature. I consider the revised manuscript ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shreya Macherla

**********