Author
Listed:
- Roberto Tonelli
- Giuseppe Antonio Pierro
- Marco Ortu
- Giuseppe Destefanis
Abstract
Smart contracts (SC) are software programs that reside and run over a blockchain. The code can be written in different languages with the common purpose of implementing various kinds of transactions onto the hosting blockchain. They are ruled by the blockchain infrastructure with the intent to automatically implement the typical conditions of traditional contracts. Programs must satisfy context-dependent constraints which are quite different from traditional software code. In particular, since the bytecode is uploaded in the hosting blockchain, the size, computational resources, interaction between different parts of the program are all limited. This is true even if the specific programming languages implement more or less the same constructs as that of traditional languages: there is not the same freedom as in normal software development. The working hypothesis used in this article is that Smart Contract specific constraints should be captured by specific software metrics (that may differ from traditional software metrics). We tested this hypothesis on 85K Smart Contracts written in Solidity and uploaded on the Ethereum blockchain. We analyzed Smart Contracts from two repositories “Etherscan” and “Smart Corpus” and we computed the statistics of a set of software metrics related to Smart Contracts and compared them to the metrics extracted from more traditional software projects. Our results show that generally, Smart Contract metrics have more restricted ranges than the corresponding metrics in traditional software systems. Some of the stylized facts, like power law in the tail of the distribution of some metrics, are only approximate but the lines of code follow a log-normal distribution which reminds us of the same behaviour already found in traditional software systems.
Suggested Citation
Roberto Tonelli & Giuseppe Antonio Pierro & Marco Ortu & Giuseppe Destefanis, 2023.
"Smart contracts software metrics: A first study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(4), pages 1-31, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0281043
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281043
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281043. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.