Bitcoin has become the de facto 'gold' standard among cryptocurrencies as it is the most widely accepted in commerce, has the largest mining network, and greatest volume of transactions. Because of this, miners of other SHA-256 cryptocurrencies will tend to convert those altcoins into bitcoin in order to transact in a meaningful way with the real economy. The result is that bitcoin mining regulates that of all other SHA-256 blockchains. Specifically, what matters is the expected number of bitcoins produced per day given a unit of hashing (mining) power, whatever the equivalence in the coin being mined. If mining for a different coin would yield a greater return in bitcoins at the margin (per day) for a miner, an apparent arbitrage opportunity will exist to direct mining effort at that cryptocurrency and subsequently exchange those for bitcoin. These opportunities, once taken, quickly eliminate the profitable arbitrage and appear to operate in a fairly efficient and predictable manner. A model is developed in this paper to formalize this process where cryptocurrency miners seeking to maximize production in terms of bitcoins earned in a day will exploit any such opportunities. If no such opportunities exist, they will simply revert to mining bitcoins directly. There are some important implications to this process, such as a tendency for cryptocurrencies to fall in price relative to bitcoin over time, and for changes in bitcoin mining difficulty to indirectly influence the market prices of altcoins. Finally, it seems that those undertaking this process of miners' arbitrage do so at the expense of speculators and noise traders who make decisions regarding buy and sell trades without the use of fundamental data. These participants generally have poor timing, follow trends, and over-react to good and bad news. Altcoins are produced by miners and subsequently offered for sale in the market in order to obtain bitcoins; meanwhile noise traders serve as the only bid-side to the market, on average.
This paper aims to identify the likely determinants for cryptocurrency value formation, including for that of bitcoin. Due to Bitcoin’s growing popular appeal and merchant acceptance, it has become increasingly important to try to understand the factors that influence its value formation. Presently, the value of all Bitcoins in existence represent approximately $7 billion, and more than $60 million of notional value changes hands each day. Having grown rapidly over the past few years, there is now a developing but vibrant marketplace for bitcoin, and a recognition of digital currencies as an emerging asset class. Not only is there a listed and over-the-counter market for bitcoin and other digital currencies, but also an emergent derivatives market. As such, the ability to value bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies is becoming critical to its establishment as a legitimate financial asset.Using cross-sectional empirical data examining 66 of the most widely used cryptocurrencies, a regression model was estimated that points to three main drivers of cryptocurrency value: the level of competition in the network of producers, the rate of unit production, and the difficulty of algorithm used to “mine” for the cryptocurrency. These amount to relative differences in the cost of production of one digital currency over another at the margin, pointing to differences in relative cost of production – electricity goes in, cryptocurrency comes out. Using that as a starting point, a no-arbitrage situation is established for Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies followed by the formalization of a cost of production model to determine the fair value of a bitcoin.
Crashes have fascinated and baffled many canny observers of financial markets. In the strict orthodoxy of the efficient market theory, crashes must be due to sudden changes of the fundamental valuation of assets. However, detailed empirical studies suggest that large price jumps cannot be explained by news and are the result of endogenous feedback loops. Although plausible, a clear-cut empirical evidence for such a scenario is still lacking. Here we show how crashes are conditioned by the market liquidity, for which we propose a new measure inspired by recent theories of market impact and based on readily available, public information. Our results open the possibility of a dynamical evaluation of liquidity risk and early warning signs of market instabilities, and could lead to a quantitative description of the mechanisms leading to market crashes.
As bitcoin becomes more important as a worldwide financial phenomenon, it also becomes important to understand its sources of value formation. There are three ways to obtain bitcoins: buy them outright, accept them in exchange, or else produce them by 'mining'. Mining employs computational effort which requires electrical consumption for operation. The cost of electricity per kWh, the efficiency of mining as measured by watts per unit of mining effort, the market price of bitcoin, and the difficulty of mining all matter in making the decision to produce. Bitcoin production seems to resemble a competitive market, so in theory miners will produce until their marginal costs equal their marginal product. Break-even points are modeled for market price, energy cost, efficiency and difficulty to produce. The cost of production price may represent a theoretical value around which market prices tend to gravitate. As the average efficiency increases over time due to competition driving technological progress – as inefficient capital becomes obsolete it is removed while new capital replaces them – the break-even production cost of bitcoins denominated in dollars will fall. Increased efficiency, although necessary to maintain competitive advantage over other miners could serve to drive the value of bitcoin down, however adjustments in the mining difficulty and the regular halving of the block reward throughout time will tend to counteract a decreasing tendency in cost of production.
Feroz Ahmad Ahmad, Prashant Kumar, Gulshan Shrivastava, Med Salim Bouhlel
ON 12 JANUARY 2009 a pseudonymous entity signed a transaction that instructed a distributed network to transfer a small amount of digital currency to Hal Finney, one ofthe key figures of the cypherpunk movement. After a few minutes, the transaction was recorded on a distributed public ledger, permanently updating the balance ofbothparties. This transaction— the first Bitcoin transaction—marked the beginning of a new era of decentralized payment systems, ushering in a variety of financial Services that do not depend on any centralized clearinghouse or other financial middleman. Bitcoin is regarded by many as a powerful technological innovation that could disrupt many sectors, in the realm of finance and beyond. But the underlying technology on which the network operates, the Bitcoin blockchain can do much more than that. Just as the internet did in the early-1990s, blockchain technology carries with it a whole new range of promises concerning how decentralization can support and promote individual freedoms and autonomy. Blockchain proponents believe that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency platforms will revolutionize mechanisms of value exchange in the same way that the internet transformed information sharing, by providing a platform for people to exchange digital resources, in a secure and decentralized manner without the need to rely on any intermediary or trusted authority. But this revolutionary potential also carries with it serious implications for censorship, intellectual property, and the regulated flow of information. A blockchain is a decentralized database of transactions maintained by a distributed network of computers, which all contribute to the verification and the validation of transactions. Once accepted, these transactions are recorded inside a “block” of transactions, which incorporates a reference to previous blocks. This creates a long chain of blocks—a “blockchain”—that stores the history of all transactions in a chronological order. Every block contains information about a particular set of transactions, a reference to the preceding block in the blockchain, and the answer to a complex mathematical puzzle that is used to validate the data associated with that block. A copy of the blockchain is stored on every computer in the network, making it virtually impossible for anyone unilaterally to modify the data stored on this decentralized database: if anyone tries to modify any transaction the fraud will be immediately detected by all other network participants.
Open access
43 source records
Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Bitcoin is defined as digital money within a decentralized peer-to-peer payment network. It is a hybrid between fiat currency and commodity currency without intrinsic value and independent of any government or monetary authority. This paper analyses the question of whether Bitcoin is a medium of exchange or an asset and more specifically, what is its current usage and what usage will prevail in the future given its characteristics. We analyse the statistical properties of Bitcoin and find that it is uncorrelated with traditional asset classes such as stocks, bonds and commodities both in normal times and in periods of financial turmoil. The analysis of transaction data of Bitcoin accounts shows that Bitcoins are mainly used as a speculative investment and not as an alternative currency and medium of exchange.
This paper explores the recent development of digital currencies—currencies which are creatures of the Internet, self-authenticating, and usable worldwide by members of the general public to engage in the same types of direct, one-to-one transactions that daily occur using government-issued currencies. At present, the most developed digital currency measured by market capitalization is Bitcoin, which will be used as a proxy for the general phenomenon. Not surprisingly, as Bitcoin’s circulation and visibility has increased, so have the number of practical and legal issues surrounding its use. Some of these will be explored in this paper, with a view to considering the utility and viability of such currencies for widespread, global use.
We present an agent based stock flow consistent macroeconomic model with heterogeneous agents interacting through a decentralized matching process across multiple markets with multiple assets. The model is consistent across both the micro and macroeconomic levels, by providing a detailed, comprehensive, and rigorous accounting of real and financial flows and stocks. We implement the model using a brand new Java programming platform, explicitly designed for AB-SFC models.
In the history of money bitcoin represents an outstanding medium of exchange, independent from central authorities. Therefore, it has experienced impressive demand which, combined with inelastic supply, has led to huge price appreciation. Nonetheless, transaction volume has not been increasing accordingly. At the core of this conundrum is the very poor performance of bitcoin as unit of account: dramatic deflationary price instability makes bitcoin just impractical for commerce, but completely unserviceable for salaries, mortgages, and deferred payments in general. Ametrano (2014a) has championed as Hayek Money the proposal to engineer cryptocurrencies with fully automatic algorithmic non-discretionary elastic supply: the monetary rule of pegging to a price index would dynamically rebase the outstanding amount of money and achieve price stability. It is proposed here to implement Hayek Money as multiple coexisting units of account wrapped around the unmodified bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency). Prices would be stable in terms of these rebased-bitcoin units of account: different coexisting cryptocurrencies all backed by the same bitcoins, each one with its own floating bitcoin-equivalent rebasing index. These cryptocurrencies would define a new monetary standard, with striking resemblance to the gold standard as improved by the compensated dollar proposed by Fisher (1913). In this Fisher Money scenario bitcoin would be digital crypto-gold and exchange rates would be floating, not fixed, being just the relative prices of the respective cryptocurrency price indexes.
Bitcoins have emerged as a possible competitor to usual currencies, but other\ncrypto-currencies have likewise appeared as competitors to the Bitcoin\ncurrency. The expanding market of crypto-currencies now involves capital\nequivalent to $10^{10}$ US Dollars, providing academia with an unusual\nopportunity to study the emergence of value. Here we show that the Bitcoin\ncurrency in itself is not special, but may rather be understood as the\ncontemporary dominating crypto-currency that may well be replaced by other\ncurrencies. We suggest that perception of value in a social system is generated\nby a voter-like dynamics, where fashions form and disperse even in the case\nwhere information is only exchanged on a pairwise basis between agents.\n
This paper considers whether the stability of Bitcoin in the market as a method of payment using a dual currency money-search model. In the model, there is traditional money and Bitcoin. The two currencies are classified by the storage cost and the probability that sellers accept particular money for payments. Agents are randomly matched for transactions. To consider substitution effect between monies, we allow new entries every period. In the beginning of each period, new entrants come into the matching process with a unit of money of their choice. A certain number of sellers also come into the same process to maintain the population share of sellers at a constant level. With appropriately chosen parameters, the author finds that there can be stable and unstable equilibria of the share of bitcoiners. In this case, a stable equilibrium is a success (bitcoiners take a large share) while the other (unstable) is a failure (bitcoiners take a marginal share or vanish). However, if the inflation rate of traditional money decreases, the successful equilibrium disappears to start approaching the failure even if Bitcoin is currently widely accepted. Furthermore, welfare comparisons suggest that an increase in the share of bitcoiners has a negative effect; hence, the benefit from reductions in the transaction costs must compensate for the welfare erosion if Bitcoin is accepted as a new kind of payment system. If the author is to succeed, the Bitcoin community or the public authorities need to be prepared for protecting the system from several illicit activities.
Five years after the introduction of the peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency bitcoin, cryptocurrencies have flourished and become a global phenomenon. Concerns regarding the impact of cryptocurrency on financial stability and the conduct of monetary policy have drawn regulatory scrutiny and formal policy stances on this emerging phenomenon. The main purpose of the present research is to determine whether cryptocurrencies are scarce and can, by this virtue, be regarded as money. Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and litecoin are programmed to have supply scarcity, however the fact that myriad digital coins can be created effortless by emulation raises the question of whether the total combined supply of this potential money is indeed scarce or not. The primary focus of the paper is to determine empirically if the two main cryptocurrencies, bitcoin and litecoin are actually perceived by the market as being different. In order to determine whether bitcoin and litecoin are perceived as similar or not by the market, I conduct an empirical analysis using daily closing price and trade volumes data from major exchanges Bitstamp and BTC-e. I calculate correlations on a monthly and weekly frequency to investigate price co-movement and its dynamics. Complementarity and substitutability for the entire sample and for 4 separate subsamples is formally analyzed through the calculation of direct price elasticities and of cross-price elasticities of volume. I show that in spite of negligible fundamental differences that would lead us to believe that the two cryptocoins are interchangeable and fungible to a great extent, the empirical landscape is more complex, with fair evidence in favor of substitutability, i.e. them being effectively perceived as different monies. The implication of this finding is that the supply scarcity of any individual coin is not placed under question by the potentially infinite aggregate supply of all cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies can posses scarcity, and, other properties left aside, can be regarded as money.
Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka Bitcoins egenskaper och funktioner samt diskutera dess eventuella påverkan på dagens ekonomiska system. Den forskning som publicerats på ämnet undersöker främst tekniska och säkerhetsmässiga detaljer, det är därför intressant att analysera ur en ekonomisk synvinkel. Genom att använda makroekonomisk teori ska jag försöka klargöra om Bitcoin kan konkurrera med dagens valutor. Bitcoins volatilitet i värde gör det tvivelaktigt, en volatilitet som inte kan kontrolleras. Bitcoin uppfyller delar av de funktioner och egenskaper som definierar en valuta enligt makroekonomisk teori, men inte lika många som fiatpengar och Bitcoin bör därför inte kunna konkurrera med dagens valutor. Fiatpengar är att föredra även i andra områden som acceptans och säkerhet. Bitcoin är bättre ur ett kostnadsperspektiv, dock under specifika omständigheter som sällan uppfylls. Bitcoin kommer därför tills vidare fungera som ett alternativ betalningssystem och valuta för personer och företag som är villiga att ta de risker som medföljer.
This paper uses a contract theory framework to analyze the mechanisms of eurozone financial governance, with a focus on centralization vs. decentralization and incentive problems. By constructing a Stackelberg game model with n Ministries of Finance as the first movers and the European Central Bank as the second mover, we show that each government can create growth in its own country (self-benefit) by increasing government spending, but that this will increase inflation, resulting in a decrease in the value of the euro. As these effects are shared equally by eurozone countries (cost sharing), an incentive to free-ride at the expense of other countries is present. We then analyze a penalty-based solution to the free-rider problem and derive a second-best solution where a commitment not to renegotiate penalties ex-post is impossible. The optimal solution shows that ¡°limited sovereignty, ¡± that is, substantially constrained fiscal sovereignty, should be imposed as a high marginal cost for the issuance of public debt. Finally, we close the paper by discussing the possibility of Fiscal Integration (Fiscal Union).
This paper uses simple monetary economic theory in order to extract implied BTC interest rates from exchange rates, interest rates and monetary supply data. Uncovered interest rate parity permits to derive a theoretical risk free BTC interest rate that is supposed to apply in a no arbitrage environment with rational expectations. Application to BTC/US$ exchange rates, Libor and Money supply US M2 data on the period September 2010 to January 2014 provides estimates, which illustrate what a risk free BTC interest rate could look like.
The considerable diffusion of bitcoins over the Internet that took place in the last two years has highlighted some important issue about the use of anonym tools of payment in e-commerce. Even though bitcoins are largely considered to be a digital currency, the legal and economic analysis draws the attention to a concomitant structure of financial commodity with risky features related to derivative instruments making the possibility of a bubble a case to consider. The significant growth in value and the intense volatility characterizing bitcoins are more likely to be the consequence of remarkable investments made by hedge funds and the effect of specific Institutional measures, than the outcome this efficient instrument has achieved on the Internet. The following article is analyzing bitcoins in their twofold nature: the structural considerations we will express are referred to virtual coins in general, whereas the financial evaluation is related to the specific volatility of our analysis target.
The aim of this thesis is to provide a holistic analysis and an economic understanding of Bitcoin, answering two key questions: (i) Why do bitcoins have value? (ii) Why and how will governments seek to regulate the use of bitcoin? To answer these questions, the thesis begins with a discussion of money itself, developing a framework of different types of monies in terms of their uses and properties that will form the basis of the analysis. Based on the technical properties of Bitcoin the framework developed above is then applied to identify bitcoin as a digital commodity money. Following this identification, potential uses of bitcoin supporting its value will be discussed, drawing particular attention to Bitcoin s resilience to regulation. In addition, real world examples of other commodity monies will be used to support the claim that bitcoin may circulate without use value and state backing. Governments tend to seek economic control through controlling money, and it will be argued that there are good reasons to expect governments to be hostile towards widespread use of bitcoin. This is to be expected, as use of bitcoin undermines governments capacity to control money.
I argue that the bitcoins market is an example of a complex system without a stable equilibrium. The users of bitcoins fall into two broad categories: 1) Capital gain seekers: who have no functional use for the currency apart from an expectation of capital gains; 2) Functional users: who use the currency to save on transaction costs as it provides a less costly medium of exchange over traditional fiat currencies. I assume thateach category consists of mean-variance optimizers, and specify simple evolutionary dynamics for each category. I identify two simple routes to chaos in the bitcoins market. If only capital gain seekers are present, then one route to chaos is via the logistic map. If both categories of users matter then a possible route to chaos is via the delay logistic-Hénon map. A policy recommendation follows: in order to pre-empt chaos in the bitcoins market, currency exchanges should be allowed to convert bitcoins into dollars and vice versa if and only if there is an associated transaction involving buying and selling of goods or services or if the bitcoins are freshly mined.Such a regulation pre-empts chaos by reducing the impact of capital gain seekers on the virtual currency’s value.
This working paper presents a simple model for the macroeconomic behavior of bitcoin based on the economic equation of exchange. According to this model, the value of bitcoin is determined largely by the willingness of bitcoin holders to save bitcoin and not by its transactional use. This model therefore predicts that increased use of bitcoin will not cause its value to rise, but that the value of bitcoin in terms of fiat currency will be almost solely determined by the willingness of bitcoin holders to pull bitcoin out of circulation. This model suggests that bitcoin will not fall victim to a liquidity trap as suggested by some economists.
When processing transactions in a block, a miner increases his reward but also decreases his probability to earn any reward because the time needed for his block to reach consensus depends on its size. We show that this leads to a game situation between miners. We analytically solve this game for two miners. Then, we show that miners do not play a Nash equilibrium in the current Bitcoin mining environment, instead, they should not process any transaction. Finally, we show that the situation where no transaction is ever processed would stop being a Nash equilibrium if the transaction fee was multiplied or, equivalently, the fixed reward divided by a factor of about 12.
This paper discusses the potential and limitations of Bitcoin as a digital currency. Bitcoin as a digital asset has been extensively discussed from the viewpoints of engineering and security design. But there are few economic analyses of Bitcoin as a currency. Bitcoin was designed as a payments vehicle and as a store of value (or speculation). It has no use bar as money or currency. Despite recent enthusiasm for Bitcoin, it seems very unlikely that currencies provided by central banks are at risk of being replaced, primarily because of the market price instability of Bitcoin (i.e. the exchange rate against the major currencies). We diagnose the instability of market price of Bitcoin as being a symptom of the lack of flexibility in the Bitcoin supply schedule ‐ a predetermined algorithm in which the proof of work is the major driving force. This paper explores the problem of instability from the viewpoint of economics and suggests a new monetary policy rule (i.e. monetary policy without a central bank) for stabilizing the values of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
This paper overviews the entire landscape of Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin has not emerged out of cryptocurrency competition, but rather became a dominant currency as the first broad market based cryptocurrency. But there are more than a hundred of cryptocurrencies in the market, and some are catching up to Bitcoin. This is a healthy sign of currency competition á la Hayek. Through this competition new technological and security innovations may emerge. In this paper, we point out potential problems with Bitcoin and propose some ideas for an alternative cryptocurrency.
Cryptocurrencies like Biteoin are transferable digital assets, secured by cryptography. To date, all of them have been created by private individuals, organizations, or firms. Unlike bank account balances, they are not anyone's liability. They are not redeemable for any government fiat money such as Federal Reserve Notes or for any commodity money such as silver or gold coins. The cryptocurrency is thus a of competing private irredeemable monies (or would-be monies). Friedrich A. Hayek (1978a) and other economists over the last 40 years could only imagine how competition among issuers of private irredeemable monies would work. Today we have an actual study. In what follows I will discuss the main economic features of the market. I also discuss whether the is purely a bubble. As an introduction the topic, I offer the following comic verse about the contrast between Biteoin and the physical gold coins of the past: In the past, money's value was judged with our teeth; We bit coins confirm they were real. Now a Bitcoin's just data, no gold underneath. That's okay if it buys you a meal. (1) The Size and Composition of the Cryptocurrency Market Bitcoin rightly gets the lion's share of media attention, but it is not alone in the for cryptocurrencies. The authoritative website CoinMarketCap.com tracks the U.S. dollar price and total market (price per unit multiplied by number of units outstanding) for each of more than 500 traded cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is the largest by far. On a recent day (March 9, 2015), the site showed Bitcoin trading at $291 per unit, with a cap of $4.05 billion. The second and third largest cryptocurrencies, Ripple and Litecoin, had caps respectively 8.5 percent and 1.8 percent as large. The entire set of non-Bitcoin cryptocurrencies (known as altcoins) had a cap of roughly $619 million, or 15 percent of Bitcoin's. Stated differently, Bitcoin had roughly 87 percent of the market, altcoins 13 percent. In percentage terms, altcoins do a higher share of Bitcoin's business than Bitcoin does of the Federal Reserve Note's business (currently $1.35 trillion in circulation). In trading volume the percentage share of altcoins (led by litecoin and Ripple) has been similar. The cryptocurrency has grown about fourfold in cap over the last 22 months, with altcoins growing faster than Bitcoin. This is seen by comparing recent data the oldest snapshot of the CoinMarketCap site available via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, which reports data for May 9, 2013. On that date, Bitcoin had a price of $112 per unit, and a cap of $1.2 billion. The two largest altcoins at that time, Litecoin and Peercoin (aka PPCoin), had caps respectively 4.7 percent and 0.4 percent as large. Only 13 altcoins were listed. Jointly their cap was about 6 percent of Bitcoin's, giving Bitcoin 95 percent of the market. Since then, the share of altcoins has doubled, and their cap has grown ninefold. Trading volumes then were not reported. At $4.05 billion, the cap of Bitcoin, as of March 2015, was slightly smaller than the dollar value of the September 2014 monetary bases of the Lithuanian litas ($5.8 billion) and the Guatemalan quetzal ($5.5 billion), but larger than those of the Costa Rican colon ($3.3 billion) and the Serbia dinar ($3.3 billion). (2) The August 2014 figures from the Central Bank of the Bahamas do not provide the monetary base, but count Bahamian dollar currency in circulation at $210 million, less than two-thirds of Ripple's recent cap of around $344 million. Medium of Exchange, Store of Value, and Medium of Remittance Functions The retail use of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange for goods and services is small date, but is growing. In December 2014, Microsoft began accepting bitcoin payments to buy content such as games and videos on Xbox game consoles, add apps and services Windows phones or buy Microsoft software (BBC 2014). …
We study the economics of Bitcoin transaction fees in a simple static partial equilibrium model with the specificity that the system security is directly linked to the total computational power of miners. We show that any situation with a fixed fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size. In both cases, we give the optimal value of the transaction fee or of the block size. We also show that making the block size a non binding constraint and, in the same time, letting the fee be fixed as the outcome of a decentralized competitive market cannot guarantee the very existence of Bitcoin in the long-term.