Blockchain Analysis Fundamentals
Free Chainalysis Cryptocurrency Fundamentals Certification practice — 6 questions on Blockchain Analysis Fundamentals, with explanations. No sign-up. Full 12-question mixed test →
An investigator applies the common-input-ownership heuristic to a Bitcoin transaction that turns out to be a CoinJoin combining inputs from many unrelated wallets. What is the correct analytical conclusion?
The common-input-ownership (co-spend) heuristic assumes all inputs to a transaction are controlled by a single entity. CoinJoin transactions are specifically designed to violate this assumption by combining inputs from multiple independent participants, so applying the heuristic here produces false clustering and must be recognized and excluded.
While tracing funds from a hack, an analyst observes dozens of sequential transactions where each transaction sends a small amount to a new address and forwards the large remainder to another new address, repeating many times. What pattern is this?
A peeling chain is a well-known typology where funds are moved through a long sequence of transactions, peeling off a small amount at each hop while the bulk of value continues to a new address, often used to obscure the flow of illicit funds while preserving most of the balance.
Which clustering heuristic groups addresses by identifying which output in a transaction is likely returning value back to the sender, based on cues like address type or non-round value?
The change address heuristic identifies the output most likely representing change returned to the spender, using signals such as address format mismatch with other outputs, or an amount that isn't a round number, allowing analysts to link the change address back to the sender's cluster.
An analyst has a cluster of on-chain addresses believed to belong to a specific unlicensed exchange. Which approach is primarily used to attribute this cluster to that real-world entity?
Attribution requires linking a purely on-chain cluster to a real-world identity, which is achieved by correlating clustering results with off-chain intelligence such as law enforcement data, subpoenaed exchange records, public statements, forum posts, or leaked data — on-chain analysis alone cannot establish identity.
Exchanges typically assign a unique deposit address to each customer. Why are these deposit addresses generally NOT merged into a single cluster by the common-input-ownership heuristic?
The co-spend heuristic clusters addresses only when they appear together as inputs in the same transaction. Customer deposit addresses receive funds individually and are swept separately (often later, in batches with other deposit addresses, revealing the exchange cluster differently), so they are not directly co-spent with each other and the heuristic alone does not merge every customer's deposit address into one cluster.
Which statement best explains why Bitcoin is considered 'pseudonymous' rather than 'anonymous'?
Pseudonymity means identities are masked by persistent identifiers (addresses) rather than plaintext names, but those identifiers can be de-anonymized over time through clustering heuristics and off-chain intelligence — unlike true anonymity, where no such linkage is ever possible.
Ready for the real thing?
The full course has two full-length practice tests, video lessons for every exam domain, hands-on labs and detailed answer explanations.
Start my full course on Udemy →