The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and the media.[220] In the United States, the FBI prepared an intelligence assessment,[221] the SEC issued a pointed warning about investment schemes using virtual currencies,[220] and the U.S. Senate held a hearing on virtual currencies in November 2013.[222] The U.S. government claimed that bitcoin was used to facilitate payments related to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[223]

New Market Read


Researchers have pointed out at a "trend towards centralization". Although bitcoin can be sent directly to the bitcoin network, in practice intermediaries are widely used.[30]:220–222 Bitcoin miners join large mining pools to minimize the variance of their income.[30]:215, 219–222[107]:3[108] Because transactions on the network are confirmed by miners, decentralization of the network requires that no single miner or mining pool obtains 51% of the hashing power, which would allow them to double-spend coins, prevent certain transactions from being verified and prevent other miners from earning income.[109] As of 2013 just six mining pools controlled 75% of overall bitcoin hashing power.[109] In 2014 mining pool Ghash.io obtained 51% hashing power which raised significant controversies about the safety of the network. The pool has voluntarily capped their hashing power at 39.99% and requested other pools to act responsibly for the benefit of the whole network.[110]
Though perhaps not useful for the proverbial “cup of coffee” today, bitcoin is regularly used to move hundreds of millions of dollars across borders, often much more quickly and cheaply than settling such transactions through the conventional financial system. Earlier this month, for instance, a crypto user sent $194 million worth of bitcoin for just $0.10.
Regulatory Risk: Bitcoins are a rival to government currency and may be used for black market transactions, money laundering, illegal activities or tax evasion. As a result, governments may seek to regulate, restrict or ban the use and sale of bitcoins, and some already have. Others are coming up with various rules. For example, in 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services finalized regulations that would require companies dealing with the buy, sell, transfer or storage of bitcoins to record the identity of customers, have a compliance officer and maintain capital reserves. The transactions worth $10,000 or more will have to be recorded and reported.
One of Bitcoin’s most appealing features is its ruthless verification process, which greatly minimizes the risk of fraud. Since Bitcoin is decentralized, volunteers—referred to as “miners”—constantly verify and update the blockchain. Once a specific amount of transactions are verified, another block is added to the blockchain and business continues per usual.
Our first assumption is that bitcoin will derive its value both from its use as a medium of exchange and as a store of value.  As a footnote to this assumption, it should be stated that bitcoin's utility as a store of value is dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange.  We base this in turn on the assumption that for something to be used as a store of value it needs to have some intrinsic value, and if bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will have no practical utility and thus no intrinsic value and won't be appealing as a store of value.    
Speculation drives numbers. Many Bitcoin users are holding onto their bitcoins in hopes of selling them off for an enormous profit one day. With news articles portraying Bitcoin millionaires as lucky kids who got in early, you can’t really blame them. For example, if you had spent your $5 latte money on 2,000 bitcoins one morning in 2010, they would be worth about $5.4 million today. Makes you really wish you’d managed your Starbucks budget better, doesn’t it?
×