Paper detail

Towards Automating Blockchain Consensus Verification with IsabeLLM

Consensus protocols are crucial for a blockchain system as they are what allow agreement between the system's nodes in a potentially adversarial environment. For this reason, it is paramount to ensure their correct design and implementation to prevent such adversaries from carrying out malicious behaviour. Formal verification allows us to ensure the correctness of such protocols, but requires high levels of effort and expertise to carry out and thus is often omitted in the development process. In this paper, we present IsabeLLM, a tool that integrates the proof assistant Isabelle with a Large Language Model to assist and automate proofs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of IsabeLLM by using it to develop a novel model of Bitcoin's Proof of Work consensus protocol and verify its correctness. We use the DeepSeek R1 API for this demonstration and found that we were able to generate correct proofs for each of the non-trivial lemmas present in the verification.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.