الجدير بالذكر بأن بعض المواقع كانت تنشر سابقا تقديرا لمقدار الخسارة/ الربح الذي يُسجله المنقبون لكن يبدو بأنهم توقفوا عن القيام بذلك لأسباب نجهلها. قد يعتقد البعض بأنه لم يكن بالإمكان إعطاء تقدير دقيق لمقدار الخسارة أو الربح الذي يُسجله المنقبون، ولذلك تم التخلص من ذلك. إلا أنه من المُمكن جدا أنه تم التخلص من ذلك لكيلا يتم تنفير المُنقبين من عمليات التنقيب.
The U.S. federal investigation was prompted by concerns of possible manipulation during futures settlement dates. The final settlement price of CME bitcoin futures is determined by prices on four exchanges, Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit and Kraken. Following the first delivery date in January 2018, the CME requested extensive detailed trading information but several of the exchanges refused to provide it and later provided only limited data. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission then subpoenaed the data from the exchanges.[181][182]
The U.S. federal investigation was prompted by concerns of possible manipulation during futures settlement dates. The final settlement price of CME bitcoin futures is determined by prices on four exchanges, Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit and Kraken. Following the first delivery date in January 2018, the CME requested extensive detailed trading information but several of the exchanges refused to provide it and later provided only limited data. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission then subpoenaed the data from the exchanges.[181][182]

Various journalists,[205][210] economists,[211][212] and the central bank of Estonia[213] have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. In April 2013, Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, stated that "a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."[214] A July 2014 report by the World Bank concluded that bitcoin was not a deliberate Ponzi scheme.[215]:7 In June 2014, the Swiss Federal Council[216]:21 examined the concerns that bitcoin might be a pyramid scheme; it concluded that, "Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme." In July 2017, billionaire Howard Marks referred to bitcoin as a pyramid scheme.[217] 

In 2016 a decentralized autonomous organization called The DAO, a set of smart contracts developed on the platform, raised a record US$150 million in a crowdsale to fund the project.[25] The DAO was exploited in June when US$50 million in ether were taken by an unknown hacker.[26][27] The event sparked a debate in the crypto-community about whether Ethereum should perform a contentious "hard fork" to reappropriate the affected funds.[28] As a result of the dispute, the network split in two. Ethereum (the subject of this article) continued on the forked blockchain, while Ethereum Classic continued on the original blockchain.[29] The hard fork created a rivalry between the two networks.

^ Jump up to: a b c d "Statement of Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director Financial Crimes Enforcement Network United States Department of the Treasury Before the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance Subcommittee on Economic Policy" (PDF). fincen.gov. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 19 November 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2016. Retrieved 1 June 2014.
رغم وجود مجموعة محدودة نسبيا من المواقع التي تقبل دفعات بيتكوين لقاء منتجاتها، مقارنةً بالمواقع التي تتعامل بالعملات التقليدية، فإن بيتكوين مدعومة من مجموعة متزايدة من المواقع، من بينها شركات ومواقع كبيرة ومتنوعة، مثل مواقع بيع خدمات الاستضافة وحجز أسماء النطاق والشبكات الاجتماعية ومواقع الفيديو والموسيقى والمواقع المتنوعة التي تبيع مختلف أنواع المنتجات.
Several news outlets have asserted that the popularity of bitcoins hinges on the ability to use them to purchase illegal goods.[135][222] Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that bitcoin's anonymity encourages money laundering and other crimes, "If you open up a hole like bitcoin, then all the nefarious activity will go through that hole, and no government can allow that." He's also said that if "you regulate it so you couldn't engage in money laundering and all these other [crimes], there will be no demand for Bitcoin. By regulating the abuses, you are going to regulate it out of existence. It exists because of the abuses."[223][224]
In October 2015,[63] a development governance was proposed as Ethereum Improvement Proposal, aka EIP, standardized on EIP-1.[64] The core development group and community were to gain consensus by a process regulated EIP. A few notable decisions were made in the process of EIP, such as EIP-160 (EXP cost increase caused by Spurious Dragon Hardfork)[65] and EIP-20 (ERC-20 Token Standard).[66] In January 2018, the EIP process was finalized and published as EIP-1 status turned "active".[63]

Because of bitcoin's decentralized nature and its trading on online exchanges located in many countries, regulation of bitcoin has been difficult. However, the use of bitcoin can be criminalized, and shutting down exchanges and the peer-to-peer economy in a given country would constitute a de facto ban.[167] The legal status of bitcoin varies substantially from country to country and is still undefined or changing in many of them. Regulations and bans that apply to bitcoin probably extend to similar cryptocurrency systems.[168]


^ Jump up to: a b c d e Joshua A. Kroll; Ian C. Davey; Edward W. Felten (11–12 June 2013). "The Economics of Bitcoin Mining, or Bitcoin in the Presence of Adversaries" (PDF). The Twelfth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2013). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 May 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2016. A transaction fee is like a tip or gratuity left for the miner.
×