skip to main content
10.1145/3308558.3313702acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Characterizing Speed and Scale of Cryptocurrency Discussion Spread on Reddit

Published:13 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cryptocurrencies are a novel and disruptive technology that has prompted a new approach to how currencies work in the modern economy. As such, online discussions related to cryptocurrencies often go beyond posts about the technology and underlying architecture of the various coins, to subjective speculations of price fluctuations and predictions. Furthermore, online discussions, potentially driven by foreign adversaries, criminals or hackers, can have a significant impact on our economy and national security if spread at scale.

This paper is the first to qualitatively measure and contrast discussion growth about three popular cryptocurrencies with key distinctions in motivation, usage, and implementation - Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero on Reddit. More specifically, we measure how discussions relevant to these coins spread in online social environments - how deep and how wide they go, how long they last, how many people they reach, etc. More importantly, we compare user behavior patterns between the focused community of the official coin subreddits and the general community across Reddit as a whole. Our Reddit sample covers three years of data between 2015 and 2018 and includes a time period of a record high Bitcoin price rise.1

Our results demonstrate that while the largest discussions on Reddit are focused on Bitcoin, posts about Monero (a cryptocurrency often used by criminals for illegal transactions on the Dark Web2) start discussions that are typically longer and wider. Bitcoin posts trigger subsequent discussion more immediately but Monero posts are more likely to trigger a longer lasting discussion. We find that moderately subjective posts across all three coins trigger larger, longer, and more viral discussion cascades within both focused and general communities on Reddit. Our analysis aims to bring the awareness to online discussion spread relevant to cryptocurrencies in addition to informing models for forecasting cryptocurrency price that rely on discussions in social media.

References

  1. Lada A Adamic, Thomas M Lento, Eytan Adar, and Pauline C Ng. 2016. Information evolution in social networks. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. ACM, 473-482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Lars Backstrom, Jon Kleinberg, Lillian Lee, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. {n. d.}. Characterizing and curating conversation threads. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining-WSDM'13. 13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Eytan Bakshy, Jake M Hofman, Winter A Mason, and Duncan J Watts. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 65-74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch. 1992. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of political Economy 100, 5 (1992), 992-1026.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Kathleen M Carley. 1999. On the evolution of social and organizational networks. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16, 0 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Meeyoung Cha, Alan Mislove, Ben Adams, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2008. Characterizing social cascades in flickr. In Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks. ACM, 13-18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Meeyoung Cha, Alan Mislove, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2009. A measurement-driven analysis of information propagation in the flickr social network. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 721-730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Justin Cheng, Lada Adamic, P Alex Dow, Jon Michael Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2014. Can cascades be predicted?. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web. ACM, 925-936. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Justin Cheng, Lada A Adamic, Jon M Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2016. Do cascades recur?. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 671-681. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Justin Cheng, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2014. How community feedback shapes user behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.1429(2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Justin Cheng, Jon Kleinberg, Jure Leskovec, David Liben-Nowell, Bogdan State, Karthik Subbian, and Lada Adamic. 2018. Do Diffusion Protocols Govern Cascade Growth?arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07368(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Daejin Choi, Jinyoung Han, Taejoong Chung, Yong-Yeol Ahn, Byung-Gon Chun, and Ted Taekyoung Kwon. 2015. Characterizing conversation patterns in Reddit: From the perspectives of content properties and user participation behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Networks. ACM, 233-243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Munmun De Choudhury, Yu-Ru Lin, Hari Sundaram, K Selcuk Candan, Lexing Xie, Aisling Kelliher, 2010. How does the data sampling strategy impact the discovery of information diffusion in social media?Icwsm 10(2010), 34-41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Maria Glenski, Corey Pennycuff, and Tim Weninger. 2017. Consumers and curators: Browsing and voting patterns on Reddit. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 4, 4 (2017), 196-206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Maria Glenski, Tim Weninger, and Svitlana Volkova. 2018. Identifying and Understanding User Reactions to Deceptive and Trusted Social News Sources. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 176-181. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P18-2029Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Sharad Goel, Ashton Anderson, Jake Hofman, and Duncan J Watts. 2015. The structural virality of online diffusion. Management Science 62, 1 (2015), 180-196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sharad Goel, Duncan J Watts, and Daniel G Goldstein. 2012. The structure of online diffusion networks. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on electronic commerce. ACM, 623-638. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jacob Goldenberg, Barak Libai, and Eitan Muller. 2001. Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing letters 12, 3 (2001), 211-223.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jinyoung Han, Daejin Choi, Jungseock Joo, and Chen-Nee Chuah. 2017. Predicting Popular and Viral Image Cascades in Pinterest. In ICWSM. 82-91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Wenjian Hu, Krishna Kumar Singh, Fanyi Xiao, Jinyoung Han, Chen-Nee Chuah, and Yong Jae Lee. 2018. Who Will Share My Image?: Predicting the Content Diffusion Path in Online Social Networks. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 252-260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Muhammad Raza Khan. 2017. Cascading Behavior in Yelp Reviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00903(2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Young Bin Kim, Jun Gi Kim, Wook Kim, Jae Ho Im, Tae Hyeong Kim, Shin Jin Kang, and Chang Hun Kim. 2016. Predicting fluctuations in cryptocurrency transactions based on user comments and replies. PloS one 11, 8 (2016), e0161197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Siddharth Krishnan, Patrick Butler, Ravi Tandon, Jure Leskovec, and Naren Ramakrishnan. 2016. Seeing the forest for the trees: new approaches to forecasting cascades. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science. ACM, 249-258. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Srijan Kumar, Justin Cheng, Jure Leskovec, and VS Subrahmanian. 2017. An army of me: Sockpuppets in online discussion communities. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 857-866. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Andrey Kupavskii, Liudmila Ostroumova, Alexey Umnov, Svyatoslav Usachev, Pavel Serdyukov, Gleb Gusev, and Andrey Kustarev. 2012. Prediction of retweet cascade size over time. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 2335-2338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Kristina Lerman and Rumi Ghosh. 2010. Information contagion: An empirical study of the spread of news on Digg and Twitter social networks.Icwsm 10(2010), 90-97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jure Leskovec, Mary McGlohon, Christos Faloutsos, Natalie Glance, and Matthew Hurst. 2009. Information propagation and network evolution on the web. DA Project, Machine Learning Dept. Carnegie Mellon University (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Mei Li, Xiang Wang, Kai Gao, and Shanshan Zhang. 2017. A survey on information diffusion in online social networks: Models and methods. Information 8, 4 (2017), 118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Henry B Mann and Donald R Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The annals of mathematical statistics(1947), 50-60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ross C Phillips and Denise Gorse. 2017. Predicting cryptocurrency price bubbles using social media data and epidemic modelling. In Computational Intelligence (SSCI), 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on. IEEE, 1-7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Eldar Sadikov and Maria Montserrat Medina Martinez. 2009. Information propagation on Twitter. CS322 project report(2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Eldar Sadikov, Montserrat Medina, Jure Leskovec, and Hector Garcia-Molina. 2011. Correcting for missing data in information cascades. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 55-64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146-1151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Senzhang Wang, Xia Hu, Philip S Yu, and Zhoujun Li. 2014. MMRate: inferring multi-aspect diffusion networks with multi-pattern cascades. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1246-1255. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Sha Wang and Jean-Philippe Vergne. 2017. Buzz factor or innovation potential: What explains cryptocurrencies' returns?PloS one 12, 1 (2017), e0169556.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Honglin Yu, Lexing Xie, Scott Sanner, 2015. The Lifecyle of a Youtube Video: Phases, Content and Popularity.. In ICWSM. 533-542.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WWW '19: The World Wide Web Conference
    May 2019
    3620 pages
    ISBN:9781450366748
    DOI:10.1145/3308558

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 13 May 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format