Subscription Form For Participation In The Tender Of: Fill & Download for Free

IntroductionOver the last few years, a wide range of digital currencies, such as BitCoin, LiteCoin,PeerCoin, AuroraCoin, DogeCoin and Ripple, have emerged. The most prominent amongthem is BitCoin, both in terms of an impressive price development and market capitalisation.Its price increased from zero value at the time of its inception in 2009 to around $13 per aBitCoin in January 2013, and subsequently shot up by more than 8000% to around $1100 atthe end of 2013 (see Figure 1). In March 2014 the total market capitalisation of BitCoin wasmore than $5.6 billion.The rise of BitCoin’s popularity has attracted a growing interest among economists in general(e.g. Grinberg 2011; Barber et al. 2012; Kroll, Davey and Felten 2013; Moore and Christin2013), and in BitCoin’ price formation in particular (e.g. Buchholz et al. 2012; Kristoufek2013; van Wijk 2013). Several factors affecting BitCoin price have been identified in theprevious literature: (i) market fundamentals such as BitCoin supply and demand (Buchholz etal. 2012); (ii) attractiveness for investors (Kristoufek 2013); and (iii) development of globalfinancial indicators (van Wijk 2013).Buchholz et al. (2012) note that an important determinant of BitCoin price (as price of anycurrency) is the interaction between BitCoins’ supply and demand. The supply of BitCoindetermines the amount of units in circulation and thus its scarcity on the market. The demandof BitCoin is mainly determined by transaction demand as a medium of exchange. Buchholzet al. argue that BitCoin price is an outcome of interaction between supply and demand.According to Kristoufek (2013), the price formation of BitCoin cannot be explained bystandard economic theories,2because supply-demand fundamentals, which usually form thebasis of currency price formation, are absent on BitCoin markets. First, BitCoin is not issuedby a specific central bank or government and thus is detached from the real economy.Second, the demand (and supply) for BitCoin is driven also by investors’ speculativebehaviour, because there is no interest rate for the digital currencies and thus profits can beearned only from price changes.Van Wijk (2013) stresses the role of global financial development, captured e.g. by stockexchange indices, exchange rates, and oil prices measures in determining BitCoin price. VanWijk finds evidence that the Dow Jones index, the euro-dollar exchange rate, and oil pricehave a significant impact on the value of BitCoin in the long run.An important shortcoming of previous studies is that they study the impact of each BitCoin’sprice determinant separately, hence they do not consider interactions between them. Thepresent paper attempts to close this research gap by accounting of all three types of BitCoinprice determinants identified in the previous literature: supply-demand fundamentals,2For example, future cash-flows model, purchasing power parity, or uncovered interest rate parity.4investors' behaviour and global financial indicators to explain the formation of BitCoin price,and to account for their interactionsUnderstanding the BitCoin’s price formation is highly relevant both from a general monetarypolicy point of view and from a BitCoin’s ability to serve as a medium of exchange for globaleconomy’s point of view.32 The rise of BitCoinBitCoin is a peer-to-peer payment system created in 2009. It is the first open source digitalcurrency, and BitCoin is managed by an open source software algorithm that uses the globalinternet network both to create the BitCoins as well as to record and verify transactions.Being a cryptocurrency, BitCoin uses the principles of cryptography to control the creationand transfer of money. Access to the BitCoin network requires downloading the BitCoinsoftware on personal computer and joining the BitCoin network, which allows participants toengage in operations, and update and verify the transactions.Compared to a standard fiat currency, such as dollars or euros, the key distinguishing featureof BitCoin is that the quantity of units in circulation is not controlled by a person, group,company, central authority, or government, but a software algorithm controls the amount ofBitCoins issued.4 A fixed amount of BitCoins is issued at a fixed a-priori defined andpublicly known rate, implying that the stock of BitCoins increases at a decreasing rate. In2140 the BitCoin growth rate will converge to zero, when the maximum amount of BitCoinsin circulation will reach 21 million units. Hence, the maximum stock of BitCoins will notchange after 2140.BitCoins can be used to buy goods or services worldwide, provided that transaction partnersaccept BitCoin as a mean of payment. A transaction implies that BitCoin owners transfertheir ownership of a certain number of BitCoins, in exchange for goods and services. Anincreasing number of companies accept BitCoins as payments for their goods and services(CoinDesk 2014). BitCoins can be also exchanged for other currencies.To summarise, BitCoin is a fiat currency without an intrinsic value. In contrast to standardgovernment backed fiat currencies, e.g. dollar, euro, BitCoin is developed outside of anunderlying economy or issuing institution, implying that there are no macroeconomicfundamentals that would determine its price formation.3 A desirable property of a monetary instrument such as BitCoin is that it holds its value over short-mediumperiods of time in order not to create distortion when used as a medium of exchange in transaction. Large pricemovements alter the purchasing power potentially causing costs and risk to firms and consumers using it as amedium of exchange in transaction of goods and services.4 BitCoins are created in a 'mining' process, in which computer network participants, i.e. users who provide theircomputing power, verify and record payments into a public ledger called blockchain. In return for this servicethey receive transaction fees and newly minted BitCoins.53 Conceptual frameworkAccording to previous studies (Buchholz et al. 2012; Kristoufek 2013; van Wijk 2013),BitCoin price is determined by three key factors (i) supply-demand interactions of BitCoin,(ii) BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors, and (iii) global macroeconomic and financialdevelopments.3.1 Supply-demand interactionsAccording to Buchholz et al. (2012), one of the key drivers of BitCoin price is the interactionbetween BitCoin supply and demand on the BitCoin market. The demand for BitCoin isprimarily driven by its value as a medium of exchange (i.e. by value in future exchange). Thesupply is given by the stock of BitCoins in circulation, which is publicly known and ispredefined in the long run.The impact of supply-demand interactions on BitCoin price formation can be derived from amodified version of Barro’s (1979) model for gold standard.5For the sake of comparability,we denominate the stock of money base of BitCoins in a standard government controlled fiatcurrency such as dollars.6 As in Barro, we assume that firms need to convert BitCoins intodollars or other currencies, as they operate in economies using dollars or other currencies forpurchase production factors.7Suppose that B represents the total stock of BitCoins in circulation and PB denotes theexchange rate of BitCoin (i.e. dollar per unit of BitCoin), then the total BitCoin moneysupply, MS, is given by:(1)The demand for circulating BitCoins in dollar denomination, MD, is assumed to depend onthe general price level of goods and services, P, the size of BitCoin economy, Y, and thevelocity of BitCoin circulation, V. The BitCoin’s velocity, V, measures the frequency atwhich one unit of BitCoin is used for purchase of goods and services, and it depends on theopportunity cost for holding it (inflation, opportunity interest rate).(2)D PY MVThe equilibrium between BitCoin supply (1) and BitCoin demand (2) implies the followingequilibrium price relationship:5 Barro (1979) developed model for gold standard. The key difference between the gold standard and BitCoin isthat the demand for BitCoin is driven by its value in future exchange, whereas the demand for commoditycurrency is driven by both its intrinsic value and its value in future exchange. A second main difference is in thesupply behaviour. The supply of commodity currency is endogenous; it responds to changes in productiontechnology (e.g. mining technology for gold) and returns. Under current system, BitCoin supply is exogenous asit is predefined by the software algorithm.6 Note that goods and services are traded using dollars or other precious metals and not BitCoins.7If all global transactions would be executed in BitCoins, then the monetary base would be fully BitCoindenominated and, in principle, its conversion to other currency would not be necessary.6(3)VBPY PBIn perfect markets the price equilibrium given by equation (3) implies that the price ofBitCoin decreases with the velocity and the stock of BitCoins, but increases with the size ofBitCoin economy and the price level. Applying a logarithmic transformation to equation (3)and denoting variables in natural logs in lowercase, we can rewrite equation (3) into anempirically estimable model of BitCoin price:(4)where is error term. According to the underlying theoretical framework of Barro (1979),we expect that and would be positive, whereas and would be negative.3.2 BitCoin’s attractiveness for investorsBitCoin has been created relatively recently, particularly, when compared to other investmentgoods, such as gold. As a result, there are several important factors, which affect thebehaviour of BitCoin investors in addition to the traditional ones (Barber et al. 2012;Buchholz et al. 2012; Kristoufek 2013; van Wijk 2013).First, BitCoin price may be affected by risk and uncertainty of the BitCoin system. Given thatBitCoin is a fiat currency and thus intrinsically worthless, it does not have an underlyingvalue derived from consumption or its use in production process (such as gold). The value offiat currency is based on trust that it will be valuable and accepted as a medium of exchangealso in the future (Greco 2001).8The expectations about trust and acceptance are particularlyrelevant for BitCoin, which being a relatively new currency is in the phase of establishing itsmarket share by building credibility among potential users.Second, being a digital currency, BitCoin is more vulnerable to cyber-attacks, which caneasily destabilise the whole BitCoin system and thus cause more volatile price responses.Such attacks have been occurring over the whole lifespan of BitCoin (Barber et al. 2012;Moore and Christin 2013). Moore and Christin (2013) examined 40 BitCoin exchanges andfound that 18 have closed down due to cyber-attacks. For example, MtGox, once the world'sbiggest BitCoin exchange, collapsed in February 2014 due to a cyber-attack which allegedlyled to a loss of 850 thousand BitCoins.Third, investors behaviour and hence BitCoin’s price is also determined by transactions costsfor potential investors. According to Gervais, Kaniel, and Mingelgrin (2001), Grullon,Kanatas, and Weston (2004) and Barber and Odean (2008) the preferences of new investors'decision may be distorted by the effect of attention (e.g. attention in the news media) in thepresence of many alternative investment choices and search costs. The attention-driven8 Given that people consider a currency valuable if they expect others to do so, for a decentralised currency,such as BitCoin, that trust depends on a belief that the rules of the currency will be stable over time.7investment behaviour results from the costs associated with searching for information forpotential investment opportunities available on the market, such as on the stock exchange.Investment opportunities under attention of news media may be preferred by new investors,because they reduce search costs thus triggering high price responses. Indeed, Lee (2014)finds such behaviour for BitCoin, whereby the alteration of positive and negative newsgenerated high price cycles. This implies that the attention-driven investment behaviour canaffect BitCoin price either positively or negatively, depending on the type of news thatdominate in the media at a given point of time.In order to account for BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors in the BitCoin price formation,we extend equation (4) as follows:(5)0 1 2 3 4 5Bp p y v b a t t t t t t t              where at is captures BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors. According to the previous studies,coefficient5can be either negative or positive.3.3 Macroeconomic and financial developmentsVan Wijk (2013) stresses the role of global macroeconomic and financial development,captured by variables such as stock exchange indices, exchange rates, and oil prices measuresin determining BitCoin price. The impact of macroeconomic and financial indicators onBitCoin price may work through several channels. For example, stock exchange indices mayreflect the general macroeconomic and financial developments of the global economy.Favourable macroeconomic and financial developments may stimulate the use of BitCoin intrade and exchanges and thus strengthen its demand which may have positive impact onBitCoin price.Inflation and price indices are other important indicators of macroeconomic and financialdevelopments. According to Krugman and Obstfeld (2003) and Palombizio and Morris(2012), oil price is one of the main sources of demand and cost pressures and provides anearly indication of inflation development. Thus, if the price of oil signals potential changes inthe general price level, this may lead to a depreciation of BitCoin. Also the exchange ratemay reflect inflation development and thus impact positively BitCoin price as indicated byequation (3).According to Dimitrova (2005), there could be also negative relation between BitCoin priceand macro financial indicators. A decline in stock prices induces foreign investors to sell thefinancial assets they hold. This leads to a depreciation of the respective currency, but maystimulate BitCoin price if investors substitute investment in stock for investment in BitCoin.Generally, investors' return on stock exchange may capture opportunity costs of investing inBitCoin. Hence, stock exchange indices are expected to be positively related with BitCoinprice.In order to account for macroeconomic and financial developments in the BitCoin priceformation, we extend equation (5) as follows:8(6)0 1 2 3 4 5 6Bp p y v b a m t t t t t t t t                where mt is captures macroeconomic and financial indicators. According to the previousstudies, we expect6to be either positive or negative.4 DataWe use the following proxies to capture the supply-demand fundamentals suggested by theprice relationship (3). We use data for BitCoin price, PB, denominated in US dollars (mkpru).We use a historical number of total BitCoins (totbc) which have been mined to account forthe total stock of BitCoins in circulation B. We use two alternative proxies for BitCoineconomy, Y: the total number of unique BitCoin transactions per day (ntran), and the numberof unique BitCoin addresses used per day (naddu). Following Matonis (2012), we proxy themonetary BitCoin’s velocity, V, by BitCoin days destroyed for any given transaction, bcdde.This variable is calculated by taking the number of BitCoin in a transaction and multiplying itby the number of days since those coins were last spent. All these data are extracted fromQuandl. To measure the price level of global economy, P, we use exchange rate betweenthe U.S. dollar and the Euro (exrate) extracted from the European Central Bank.In order to capture BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors, a, following Kristoufek (2013), weuse the volume of daily BitCoin views on Wikipedia, wiki_views, which measures investors’faith in BitCoin.9 According to Kristoufek (2013), the frequency of searches related to thedigital currency is a good measure of potential investors’ interest in the currency. Piskorec etal. (2014) argue that this measure may also capture speculative behaviour of investors. Theonline search queries, such as Wikipedia views, may measure investors' interest in BitCoin,as it captures the information’s demand about the currency. We use also variable of thenumber of new members (new_members) and new posts (new_posts) extracted fromBitcoin Forum - Index. As explained above, the variable new_members captures the size of theBitCoin economy but also attention-driven investment behaviour of new BitCoin members.The variable new_posts captures the effect of trust and/or uncertainty, as it represents theintensity of discussions among members.To account for global macroeconomic and financial indicators, m, we follow van Wijk (2013)and we use oil price, oil_price, and the Dow Jones stock market index, DJ.10 The oil pricesare from the US Energy Information Administration and Dow Jones index is extracted fromthe Federal Research Bank of St. Louis.9 Kristoufek (2013) used also queries of BitCoin on Google Trends to measure investor faith/sentiment inBitCoin. These data are available only on weekly bases. Since we use daily data we do not use this proxy in ourestimations.10 The Dow Jones Index is an industrial average that captures 30 major corporations on either the NYSE or theNASDAQ.95 Econometric approachThe conceptual analyses in section 3 suggest that BitCoin price and explanatory variablesconsidered in the analysis are mutually interdependent. The estimation of non-linearinterdependencies among interdependent time series in presence of mutually cointegratedvariables is subject to the endogeneity problem (Lütkepohl and Krätzig 2004). To circumventthe problem of endogeneity, we follow the general approach in the literature to analyse thecausality between endogenous time-series and specify a Vector Auto-Regressive (VAR)model (Lütkepohl and Krätzig 2004).According to Engle and Granger (1987), regressions of interdependent and non-stationarytime series may lead to spurious results. In order to avoid spurious regression, it is importantto test the properties of the time series involved. Therefore, in the first step, the stationarity oftime series is determined, for which we use two unit root tests: the augmented Dickey-Fuller(ADF) test and the Phillips-Perron (PP) test. The number of lags that we use for eachdependent variable is determined by the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). If twoindividual time series are not stationary, their combination may be stationary (Engle andGranger 1987). In this special case, the time series are considered to be cointegrated,implying that there exists a long-run equilibrium relationship between them.In the second step, we employ the Johansen's cointegration method to examine the long-termrelationship between the price series. The number of cointegrating vectors is determined bythe maximum eigenvalue test and the trace test. Both tests use eigenvalues to compute theassociated test statistics. We follow the Pantula principle to determine whether a time trendand a constant term should be included in the model.In the third step, we estimate a vector error correction model for those series that arecointegrated. It includes an error correction term indicating the speed of adjustment of anydisequilibrium towards a long-term equilibrium state. Following Johansen and Juselius's(1990), we start with a vector autoregressive model and reformulate it into a vector errorcorrection model:(7)Zt A Zt AkZt k t     ... 1 1(8)t tkiZt iZt i Z     111where Zt is a vector of non-stationary variables, A are matrices of different parameters, t istime subscript, k is the number of lags and εt is the error term assumed to follow i.i.d. processwith a zero mean and normally distributed N(0, σ2) error structure. Equation (2) containsinformation on both short-run and long-run adjustments to changes in Zt via the estimates ofΓi and Π, respectively. Π can be decomposed as Π=αβ’, where α represents the speed ofadjustment to disequilibrium and β represents the long-run relationships between variables(Johansen and Juselius's 1990).10As usual, in order to ensure the adequacy of the estimated models, we implement a series ofspecification tests: Lagrange-multiplier (LM) test for autocorrelation in the residuals; JarqueBerra test to check if the residuals in the VEC are normally distributed and the test of stabilityof the model.6 ResultsFollowing the theoretical hypothesis, we estimate four sets of econometric models of BitCoinprice (differences in specifications between the estimated models are reported in Table 1).Models 1.1 to 1.5 capture BitCoin’s supply-demand interactions and their impact on BitCoinprice. Model 2.1 estimates the impact of BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors ofbuying/selling BitCoins. Model 3.1 estimates the impact of global macroeconomic andfinancial developments. Models 4.1 to 4.9 interact the above three components.Given that several variables are highly correlated, we estimate alternative modelspecifications (Table 1) by sequentially replacing those variables that are highly correlated.11We found a particularly high correlation (corr. >0.8) for the total stock of BitCoin and thesize of the BitCoin economy (totbc – ntran, totbc – naddu, naddu – ntran), the Dow JonesIndex and the total stock of BitCoins, and the size of BitCoin economy (totbc – dj, naddu –dj) and the Wikipedia views with the Dow Jones Index and the size of BitCoin economy(wiki_views – dj, wiki_views – naddu) (Table 2).The estimation results are reported in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. Whereas Table 3and Table 4 report the short-run impacts, Table 5 and Table 6 show the long-run impact ofdifferent determinants on BitCoin price. According to the results reported in Table 3 andTable 4, a number of variables have statistically significant short-run effect on BitCoin priceadjustments. In particular, this is the case for own price effects, the stock of total BitCoins,totbc, BitCoin days destroyed, bcdde, and Wikipedia views, wiki_views. The short-run effectsrepresent the short-run dynamics of variables in the cointegrated system. It describes how thetime series react when the long-run equilibrium is distorted.According to the results reported in Table 5 and Table 6, the long-run relationship betweenBitCoin price and different variables considered in the estimated models is stronger than theshort-run impact. The first major observation arising from our estimates is that the supplydemand fundamentals have a strong impact on BitCoin price. The demand side variables (e.g.bcdde, naddu) appear to exert a stronger impact on BitCoin price than the supply side drivers(e.g. totbc). According to the results reported in Table 5, an increase in the stock of BitCoins(totbc) leads to a decrease in BitCoin price (model 1.2), whereas an increase in the size of theBitCoin economy (naddu) and its velocity (bcdde) lead to a higher price (models 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,11 Note that we have tested for the stationarity of the data series using augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) andPhillips Perron (PP) tests. The lags of the dependent variable in the tests were determined by AkaikeInformation Criterion (AIC). Both tests show that all the time series are non-stationary in levels but stationary infirst differences (results of the tests are available upon request from authors).111.4, 1.5, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7). Contrary to our expectations, the alternative variable that captures thesize of the BitCoin economy (ntran) has negative impact on BitCoin price in models 1.1 and1.5. However, this variable is not significant in the more general models (models 4.1-4.9).Although, the sign of the estimated coefficients for supply-demand fundamentals of BitCoinis in line with the theoretical predictions (except for ntran in models 1.1 and 1.5), thestatistical significance and magnitude of the estimated coefficients decreases in most models,when accounting for the impact of BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors and globalmacroeconomic and financial developments (models 4.1 to 4.9 in Table 6). The supplydemand variables are statistically significant in models 4.3, 4.4 and 4.7, but have aconsiderably lower magnitude of the estimated impact than in models 1.1 to 1.5, whichcapture only BitCoin’s supply-demand fundamentals. This could be explained by the fact thatpart of the BitCoin’s price variation explained by the supply-demand variables is absorbed byother variables in more general specifications (models 4.1 to 4.9).The strongest and statistically most significant impact on BitCoin price is estimated forvariables capturing the impact of BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors: wiki_views,new_members and new_posts (models 2.1 and models 4.1 to 4.9). The variable new_membershas negative impact on BitCoin price, implying that attention-driven investment behaviour ofnew members dominates. The variable new_posts has positive impact on BitCoin price,reflecting an increasing acceptance and trust of BitCoin captured by the intensity ofdiscussion between BitCoin users. This may reflect declining transaction costs anduncertainty for investors, which increases investment demand of BitCoins and hence it’sprice.Consistent with Kristoufek (2013), Wikipedia views have a statistically significant impact onBitCoin price. This variable is significant and has positive impact in all models in which it(except for model 4.8). However, the interpretation of this variable is not straightforward, asit may capture various effects. On the one hand, this may reflect speculative behaviour ofinvestors. Kristoufek (2013) argues that, since the BitCoin fundamentals allowing for settinga ‘‘fair’’ price are missing, its price is driven by the investors’ faith in the future growth andis dominated by short-term investors, trend chasers, noise traders and speculators. On theother hand, Wikipedia views may measure investors' interest in BitCoin, as it capturesinformation’s demand about the currency (Piskorec et al. 2014). It may reflect changes in theknowledge about BitCoin between users, thus leading to a higher acceptance and demand forit. Important is that the type of people searching information about BitCoin on Wikipedia arelikely to be new BitCoin users/investors, because Wikipedia contains rather generalinformation about BitCoin, which is known by incumbent investors or advanced BitCoinusers. If these last two arguments hold, then the estimated Wikipedia effect represents theimpact of the demand side of the BitCoin economy as given by variable Y in equation (3) notnecessarily capturing only speculative behaviour of investors.Our findings suggest that, in contrast to previous studies (i.e. van Wijk 2013), macrofinancial indicators such as the Dow Jones Index, exchange rate and oil price do notsignificantly affect BitCoin price in the long-run. Only in Model 3.1 all macro and financial12variables (dj, oil_price and exrate) are statistically significant (Table 5). This is in line withthe estimates of van Wijk (2013), who also finds statistically significant impact of macrofinancial variables on BitCoin price. However, van Wijk (2013) does not account forBitCoin’s market fundamentals or BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors. When these factorsare taken in consideration (models 4.1 to 4.9), their impact decreases considerably in allmodels (except for model 4.1) (Table 6).7 ConclusionsDue to a growing market share of BitCoin, a rapidly increasing price of BitCoin and its highprice volatility, there is an increasing interest among users and academics in understandingthe BitCoin system in general and its price formation in particular. This paper attempts toshed light on drivers that determine BitCoin price in the short- and long-run. The paperanalyses the relationship between BitCoin price and supply-demand fundamentals ofBitCoins alongside the global macro-financial indicators and BitCoin’s attractiveness forinvestors. We employ a VAR estimation approach and use daily data for the period 2009-2014 to identify the causal effects between BitCoin’s price and its determinants.Our empirical analyses confirm that BitCoin market fundamentals have an important impacton BitCoin price, implying that, to a large extent, the formation of BitCoin price can beexplained in a standard economic model of currency price formation. Supply and demanddrivers have an important impact on the BitCoin price formation and thus are among the keyfactors in determining its stability. In particular, the demand-side drivers, such as the size ofthe BitCoin economy and the velocity of BitCoin circulation, have the strongest impact onBitCoin price. Hence, given that BitCoin supply is exogenous, the development of thedemand side drivers will be among the key determinants of BitCoin price also in the future.Second, we cannot reject the hypothesis that speculations are also affecting BitCoin price.The statistically significant impact of Wikipedia views on BitCoin price could be an evidenceof speculative short-run behaviour of investors, or it may capture the expansion of thedemand side of the BitCoin economy. Additionally, we find that also new posts impactBitCoin price positively, which may be a result of an increased trust among users. As such,speculative trading of BitCoins is not necessarily an undesirable activity, as it may generatebenefits in terms of absorbing excess risk from risk adverse participants and providingliquidity on the market. A negative side of short-run investors’ speculative behaviour is that itmay increase price volatility and price bubbles. The success of BitCoin thus also hitches onits ability to reduce the potential negative implications of speculations and expand the use ofBitCoin in trade and commerce.Finally, our estimates do not support previous findings that macro-financial indicators may bedriving BitCoin price. In fact, once we control for supply-demand variables and BitCoin'sattractiveness for investors linked to BitCoin, the relevance of macro-financial indicatorsbecomes statistically insignificant.13ReferencesBarber, S., X. Boyen, E. Shi and E. Uzun (2012). "Bitter to Better-How to Make BitCoin aBetter Currency." In A.D. Keromytis (ed.), Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Vol.7397 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 399-414, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Barber, B.M. and T. Odean (2008). "All That Glitters: The Effect of Attention and News onthe Buying Behavior of Individual and Institutional Investors." Review of Financial Studies21(2): 785-818.Buchholz, M., Delaney, J., Warren, J. and Parker, J. (2012). "Bits and Bets, Information,Price Volatility, and Demand for BitCoin." Economics 312,http://www.bitcointrading.com/pdf/bitsandbets.pdfCoinDesk (2014). "What Can You Buy with BitCoins?" CoinDesk 6th March 2014,Bitcoin 101: What Can You Buy with Bitcoin? - CoinDeskDimitrova, D. 2005). "The Relationship between Exchange Rates and Stock Prices: Studiedin a Multivariate Model." Issues in Political Economy 14: 1-25.Engle, R.F., and Granger, C.W.J. (1987). "Co-integration and error correction:Representation, estimation and testing", Econometrica, 55(2), 251-276Gervais, Simon, Ron Kaniel, and Dan H. Mingelgrin. 2001. The high-volume returnpremium. Journal of Finance 56: 877–919.Greco T.H. (2001). Money: Understanding and Creating Alternatives to Legal Tender. WhiteRiver Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.Grinberg, R. (2011). "BitCoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency." HastingsScience & Technology Law Journal 4: 159-208.Grullon, G., Kanatas, G. and Weston, J.P. (2004). Advertising, breadth of ownership, andliquidity. Review of Financial Studies 17: 439–61.Johansen, S. and Juselius, K. (1990). "Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference onCointegration with Applications to the Demand for Money", Oxford Bulletin of Economicsand Statistics 52(2): 169-210.Kovenock, D., and De Vries, C.G. (2002). "Fiat Exchange in Finite Economies." EconomicInquiry 40(2), 147-157.Krugman P.R. and Obstfeld M. (2003). International Economics: Theory and Policy. (6thedn.), Addison Wesley, USAKristoufek, L. (2013). "BitCoin meets Google Trends and Wikipedia: Quantifying therelationship between phenomena of the Internet era." Scientific Reports 3 (3415): 1-7.14Kroll, J., I. Davey, and E. Felten (2013)."The Economics of BitCoin Mining, or BitCoin inthe Presence of Adversaries." WEIS 2013,http://weis2013.econinfosec.org/papers/KrollDaveyFeltenWEIS2013.pdfLee, T.B. (2014). "These four charts suggest that BitCoin will stabilize in the future."Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/03/thesefour-charts-suggest-that-bitcoin-will-stabilize-in-the-future/Lütkepohl, H., Krätzig, M. (2004). Applied Time Series Econometrics, Cambridge UniversityPress.Matonis, J. (2012). "Top 10 BitCoin Statistics." Forbes 7/31/2012,Top 10 Bitcoin StatisticsMoore, T. and N. Christin (2013). "Beware the Middleman: Empirical Analysis of BitCoinExchange Risk." Financial Cryptography and Data Security 7859: 25-33.Murphy, R.P. (2013). "The Economics of BitCoin." Library Economic Liberty,The Economics of Bitcoin - EconlibPalombizio E. and I. Morris. (2012). "Forecasting Exchange Rates using Leading EconomicIndicators." Open Access Scientific Reports 1(8): 1-6.Piskorec, P., N. Antulov-Fantulin, P. K. Novak, I. Mozetic, M. Grcar, I. Vodenska, and T.Šmuc (2014). "News Cohesiveness: an Indicator of Systemic Risk in Financial Markets."arXiv:1402.3483v1 [http://cs.SI], http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.3483v1.pdfvan Wijk, D. (2013). "What can be expected from the BitCoin?" Working Paper No. 345986,Erasmus Rotterdam Universiteit.16Table 1: Specification of the empirically estimated modelsM 1.1 M 1.2 M 1.3 M 1.4 M 1.5 M 2.1 M 3.1 M 4.1 M 4.2 M 4.3 M 4.4 M 4.5 M 4.6 M 4.7 M 4.8 M 4.9Supply-demandvariablestotbc x x x x x xntran x x x xnaddu x x x x x xbcdde x x x x x x x x x x x x xexrate x x x x x x x xBitCoin’sattractiveness forinvestorswiki_views x x x x x x xnew_member x x x x x x xnew_posts x x x x x x x x xMacro-financialdevelopmentsdj x x x x xoil_price x x x17Table 2: Correlation coefficientsntran totbc bcdde dj wiki_views naddu oil_price ex_rate new_posts new_membersntran 1totbc 0.92 1bcdde 0.45 0.41 1dj 0.76 0.92 0.38 1wiki_views 0.71 0.79 0.51 0.83 1naddu 0.92 0.95 0.47 0.91 0.86 1oil_price -0.21 0.03 -0.06 0.29 0.07 -0.01 1ex_rate 0.19 0.44 0.19 0.59 0.50 0.42 0.50 1new_posts 0.59 0.68 0.34 0.75 0.68 0.74 0.11 0.36 1new_members 0.40 0.45 0.24 0.51 0.59 0.53 0.01 0.25 0.66 118Table 3: Short-run effects on BitCoin Price for model sets 1, 2 and 3M 1.1 M 1.2 M 1.3 M 1.4 M 1.5 M 2.1 M 3.1LD.mkpru 0.147*** 0.136*** 0.149*** 0.135*** 0.145*** 0.147*** 0.143***L2D.mkpru -0.017 -0.021 -0.017 -0.020 -0.014 -0.020 -L3D.mkpru -0.033 -0.027 -0.037 -0.028 -0.025 -0.032 -L4D.mkpru 0.054* - 0.051 - - - -LD.totbc -17.31 -11.940 -21.540 - - - -L2D.totbc 38.51 44.880* 36.500 - - - -L3D.totbc -43.68* -20.140 -48.360** - - - -L4D.totbc 41.60** - 39.190* - - - -LD.ntran 0.001 - - - 0.000 - -L2D.ntran -0.002 - - - 0.003 - -L3D.ntran -0.016 - - - -0.018 - -L4D.ntran -0.011 - - - - - -LD.naddu - 0.015 - 0.011 - - -L2D.naddu - 0.005 - 0.007 - - -L3D.naddu - -0.022 - -0.023 - - -L4D.naddu - - - - - - -LD.bcdde -0.009** -0.009** -0.011*** -0.009*** -0.008** - -L2D.bcdde -0.007* -0.006* -0.008** -0.006** -0.006* - -L3D.bcdde -0.005 -0.003 -0.007* -0.003 -0.003 - -L4D.bcdde -0.002 - -0.003 - - - -LD.exrate -0.382 -0.391 -0.417 -0.404 -0.426 - -0.630L2D.exrate 0.369 0.429 0.327 0.429 0.359 - -L3D.exrate 0.175 0.292 0.152 0.280 0.222 - -L4D.exrate -0.278 - -0.306 - - - -LD.wiki_views - - - - - -0.005 -L2D.wiki_views - - - - - -0.012* -L3D.wiki_views - - - - - -0.015** -L4D.wiki_views - - - - - - -LD.new_members - - - - - 0.004 -L2D.new_members - - - - - 0.005 -L3D.new_members - - - - - -0.001 -L4D.new_members - - - - - - -LD.new_posts - - - - - -0.007 -L2D.new_posts - - - - - -0.002 -L3D.new_posts - - - - - 0.005 -L4D.new_posts - - - - - - -http://LD.dj - - - - - - -0.046http://L2D.dj - - - - - - -http://L3D.dj - - - - - - -http://L4D.dj - - - - - - -LD.oilprice - - - - - - 0.178L2D.oilprice - - - - - - -L3D.oilprice - - - - - - -L4D.oilprice - - - - - - -constant - - 0.000 - - - -Notes: *** significant at 1% level, ** significant at 5% level, * significant at 10% level. "-" indicates either absence of a variable in the respective model or the coefficient isnot significantly different from zero.19Table 4: Short-run effects on BitCoin Price for general modelsM 4.1 M 4.2 M 4.3 M 4.4 M 4.5 M 4.6 M 4.7 M 4.8 M 4.9LD.mkpru 0.144*** 0.136*** 0.147*** 0.146*** 0.145*** 0.149*** 0.143*** 0.148*** 0.147***L2D.mkpru - -0.032 -0.017 -0.026 -0.027 -0.024 -0.020 -0.016 -0.017L3D.mkpru - - -0.021 - - - -0.022 -0.033 -0.028L4D.mkpru - - - - - - - 0.056* 0.054*LD.totbc - -20.930 -15.524 - -16.637 - - - -L2D.totbc - 26.010 44.028*** - 31.547 - - - -L3D.totbc - - -32.434 - - - - - -L4D.totbc - - - - - - - - -LD.ntran - - - - - - - 0.001 0.001L2D.ntran - - - - - - - 0.006 0.002L3D.ntran - - - - - - - -0.018 -0.020L4D.ntran - - - - - - - -0.009 -0.007LD.naddu - 0.024 0.001 0.009 - - 0.006 - -L2D.naddu - 0.014 -0.002 0.007 - - 0.001 -L3D.naddu - - -0.022 - - - -0.026* - -L4D.naddu - - - - - - - - -LD.bcdde - -0.003 -0.004 -0.005 -0.005 -0.004 -0.009** -0.006 -0.009**L2D.bcdde - -0.002 -0.002 -0.004 -0.003 -0.003 -0.006* -0.005 -0.008*L3D.bcdde - - -0.001 - - - -0.003 -0.003 -0.005L4D.bcdde - - - - - - - -0.002 -0.003LD.exrate -0.644 -0.488 - - - - - - -L2D.exrate - 0.370 - - - - - - -L3D.exrate - - - - - - - - -L4D.exrate - - - - - - - - -LD.wiki_views -0.002 -0.003 -0.007 0.001 - 0.001 - -0.004 -L2D.wiki_views - -0.010 -0.013* -0.009 - -0.008 - -0.011 -L3D.wiki_views - - -0.014** - - - - -0.012* -L4D.wiki_views - - - - - - - 0.004 -LD.new_members - 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 - 0.004 0.002L2D.new_members - 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 - 0.005 0.002L3D.new_members - - -0.001 - - - - -0.001 -0.003L4D.new_members - - - - - - - 0.001 0.000LD.new_posts - -0.006 -0.005 -0.006 -0.005 -0.007 - -0.007 -0.006L2D.new_posts - -0.003 -0.001 -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001L3D.new_posts - - 0.006 - - - 0.001 0.004 0.004L4D.new_posts - - - - - - 0.004 -0.001 -0.001http://LD.dj -0.057 -0.143 0.009 - - - - - 0.085http://L2D.dj - 0.088 0.008 - - - - - 0.010http://L3D.dj - - -0.226 - - - - - -0.209http://L4D.dj - - - - - - - - 0.094LD.oilprice 0.181 0.212 - - - - - - -L2D.oilprice - -0.176 - - - - - - -L3D.oilprice - - - - - - - - -L4D.oilprice - - - - - - - - -constant - - - - - - - - -Notes: *** significant at 1% level, ** significant at 5% level, * significant at 10% level. "-" indicates either absence of a variable in the respective model or the coefficient isnot significantly different from zero.20Table 5: Long-run effects on BitCoin Price for model sets 1, 2 and 3M 1.1 M 1.2 M 1.3 M 1.4 M 1.5 M 2.1 M 3.1totbc -4.2 -5.96*** - - - - -ntran -3.99** - - - -3.42*** - -naddu - 3.17*** - - - - -bcdde 11.71*** - 5.07*** 5.40*** 10.84*** - -exrate - - 12.69 - 0.43 - 16.04***wiki_views - - - - - 1.94*** -new_members - - - - - - -new_posts - - - - - - -dj - - - - - - 16.10***oil_price - - - - - - - 4.52***constant -62.14 -66.73** -77.35*** -77.79*** -124.98*** -13.66*** -133.79***Notes: *** significant at 1% level, ** significant at 5% level, * significant at 10% level"-" indicates either absence of a variable in the respective model or the coefficient is not significantly different from zero.21Table 6: Long-run effects on BitCoin Price for general modelsM 4.1 M 4.2 M 4.3 M 4.4 M 4.5 M 4.6 M 4.7 M 4.8 M 4.9totbc - - - - - - - - -ntran - - - - - - - - -naddu - - 0.36 0.50*** - - - - -bcdde - - 0.41*** - - - 0.28** - -exrate 0.63 - - - - - - - -wiki_views 1.38*** 0.89*** 0.90*** 1.78*** - 1.93*** - - -new_members - -1.23*** -0.26*** -0.35*** - - - -0.46*** -0.35***new_posts - 2.33*** 1.21*** - 1.92*** - 1.99*** 2.55*** 2.44***dj 4.79*** - - - - - - - -oil_price - - - - - - - - -constant -54.45*** -17.44** -15.64*** -15.73*** -11.89*** -13.62*** -17.23*** -15.29*** -14.96***Notes: *** significant at 1% level, ** significant at 5% level, * significant at 10% level"-" indicates either absence of a variable in the respective model or the coefficient is not significantly different from zero.22Figure 1. BitCoin price development 2009-2014Source: http://www.quandl.com/markets/BitCoin02004006008001000120003/01/200913/04/200922/07/200930/10/200907/02/201018/05/201026/08/201004/12/201014/03/201122/06/201130/09/201108/01/201217/04/201226/07/201203/11/201211/02/201322/05/201330/08/201308/12/2013Lastly, I will recommend(Cryptoavenue - Investing Digital Currency)Cryptocurrency Investment Platform (Cryptoavenue - Investing Digital Currency) as it was launched at mid-summer 2013) but has become the largest cryptocurrency Investment Platform right now with a total volume over 120 million dollars Traded. This is where I invest and get my invested Bitcoin after weeks, months. They Support variety of cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin. I find that it has a really nice UI and support.

Let's start with Central Bank Digital Currencies. CBDCs are a digital representation or form of sovereign/fiat currency (value) that is issued and backed by central banks. The natural question which may arise is how are the current forms of payments like wallets, local payment systems including NEFT, RTGS, UPIs different from CBDC?One of the main differences is the underlying technology used. CBDCs use distributed ledger technology (DLT), which is typically deployed in a hybrid architecture i.e. existing central bank and payment infrastructure + DLT for movement, transparency, workflow and audit trail or tracing of funds (value). This technology helps in efficiency (speed), security (encryptions) and also other aspects like smart contracts which execute buy and sell transactions based on a pre-defined criteria and opens up the possibility of ‘programmable’ money. CBDC can be in different forms like token or account/ digital wallet formThe design and implementation of wholesale and retail CBDC is an important aspect of determining anonymity and the ultimate funds trail. What features a CBDC has, depends on how the central bank envisages the future of CBDCs and the resultant framework that is put in place.As mentioned before, the underlying technology used for CBDCs can vary from DLT or a mix of existing payment rails and systems at one layer and DLT at the second layer. In order to keep track of money, banks need to store financial records, such as how much money a person has and what transactions they’ve made. While digitising the money supply chain from central banks to commercial banks to consumers of wholesale and retail CBDCs, complimenting the existing infrastructure and investment is important.How are CBDCs different from private cryptocurrencies?While both work on the DLT technology, the goals are different. Private crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin are decentralised digital currencies and use open source peer to peer networks to make trustless transactions possible. There is no central entity or group of entities in charge. That concept typically does not sit well with governments. Also, private cryptocurrencies could have certain limits. For example, Bitcoin has a hard limit of 21 million units built into the protocol. It is very hard to break/increase this limit. In contrast to CBDCs, the supply and demand can be controlled by central banks which are in charge of the money supply. They can choose when to remove or add money to the supply, such as to stimulate the economy in troubled times and set national interest rates, among other tasks.Typical features for CBDCCentral Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) will be legal tenderCBDC must be complementary to cash and is not intended to replace cashCBDC must be accepted as a means of payment by all sizes of business and by the government;Must not introduce the risk of destabilising the financial sector & mechanisms to give effect to policy decisions regarding its supply & movement;Consumers must be able to own and transact in CBDC without the need for a bank account;Consumers and businesses must be provided with channels to obtain or return CBDC in exchange for cash & commercial bank money;It must enable instant peer-to-peer transfer of value without clearing and settlement in today’s terms;CBDCs could be traceable & auditable in terms of issuance and ownershipAnother key area where CBDCs could play a role is cross border payments. Today’s cross border payments work mainly around the SWIFT framework and despite a lot of financial innovation, do involve travelling through a maze of bank nostros, vostros and ultimately local payment systems. With CBDCs, we could increase payment efficiency, improve on authentication (including AML risks) and finally also improve transaction costs thereby benefiting the full universe of retail users. For this to move ahead global central banks will have to coordinate amongst themselves to set up a global framework and protocol such that interoperability is achieved across new settlement systems.Cross-border and wholesale uses for CBDCSubscription to mutual funds and also possibly other security transactions (equity and debt) using CBDCs, whereby instantaneous fund transfers will lead to more efficiency albeit missed cut offs, lengthening payment cut-offs etc.Trade Invoicing in INR and importer/exporter paying and receiving in CBDCSoftware developers being paid in CBDCNon-Resident Indians keeping CBDC INR accounts offshore/ fungible into NRE and NRO accountsGIFT City permitting CBDC Indian rupee (INR) accounts to be opened with IFSC banking units as authorised agents, the logic being that the central bank could keep aside a finite amount of rupee from the money supply, and issue a pool of CBDC through authorised dealer (AD) banks. This will enable a finite pool of Indian rupees in free float offshore with proper tracking and audit trails. This could be the initial baby steps to test the waters towards capital account convertibility.While there are a lot of pros for CBDCs, one also needs to be careful that CBDCs do not disrupt well-functioning capital and credit markets. Liquidity is another key issue. For any asset class to be stable, there has to be a good balance of buyers and sellers. Depending on the laws in each jurisdiction, issuing a CBDC would require additional monitoring and compliance under Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) laws.Finally, as the central bank will intermediate CBDCs through wholesale banks and financial institutions, its impact on savings and deposits needs to be carefully studied and analysed as they serve as a large savings pool for banks to lend to commercial and retail establishments. How the general public perceives CBDCs as a replacement for cash is also an important aspect to consider. Depending on the form of CBDC, the anonymity and audit trial of funds would vary.To summarise, CBDCs provide opportunities and threats to the money supply chain that could disrupt the broader financial services ecosystem. Globally, a lot of central banks have been studying CBDCs in great detail and in some cases even running pilot test cases. India has been at the forefront of digital innovation over the last decade and it is important for us to start trial projects for CBDCs in controlled environments.The typically used cases would be market participants who today don’t have access to UPI as they don’t want to actively access bank accounts. That’s the residual gap for India which CBDC can plug. To that extent, this can be a regulated alternative to a fintech wallet, with a central bank ‘promise to pay’ which is core to a fiat currency. Wallets enhance systemic risk. CBDC when combined with fintech wallets and other digital payment mediums, will help control those systematic risks.Some pilot projects could be started in college canteens, large sporting or entertainment events etc. CBDCs could also be used to alter the lives of those living in tier 3 & 4 towns and villages. This could be in the form of financial inclusion -- be it direct benefit transfer from the government, more formal savings opportunities and possibly easier and more cost effective access to loans which result in better monetary policy transmission.

The internet has democratised information. We can investigate any “knowledge community” without fear of rebuke and rebuttal.I will write about the internet first, then please be patient, I will answer the question.in 1995 the top 10 uses of the internet wereTop 10 uses of the InternetDecember 21, 1995by Diane MyersComments 4Based on a recent survey of Internet traffic, the 10 most popular uses of the Internet in descending order of use are:Electronic mail. At least 85% of the inhabitants of cyberspace send and receive e-mail. Some 20 million e-mail messages cross the Internet every week.Research.Downloading files.Discussion groups. These include public groups, such as those on Usenet, and the private mailing lists that ListServ manages.Interactive games. Who hasn’t tried to hunt down at least one game?Education and self-improvement. On-line courses and workshops have found yet another outlet.Friendship and dating. You may be surprised at the number of electronic “personals” that you can find on the World Wide Web.Electronic newspapers and magazines. This category includes late-breaking news, weather, and sports. We’re likely to see this category leap to the top five in the next several years.Job-hunting. Classified ads are in abundance, but most are for technical positions.Shopping. It’s difficult to believe that this category even ranks. It appears that “cybermalls” are more for curious than serious shoppers.The survey shows that individuals, corporations, business people, and groups use Internet primarily as a communications vehicle as these users reduce their use of fax machines, telephones, and the postal service. E-mail should remain at the top of the list. The Internet has continued and will continue to change how we view the world. — by Diane Myers, Analyst Communications, End Use, In-Stat, Scottsdale, AZ. (602) 483-4442More great EDN articles:1st .com domain name is registered, March 15, 1985ARPANET establishes 1st computer-to-computer link, October 29, 1969History of the internetThe Next Killer App? The Internet, and It’s Here NowDecember 1, 1995: EDN launches this site10 tips for a successful engineering resumeElectronic products from hellThe 5 greatest engineers of all time6 famous people you may not know are engineersBook review: A guide to sensors in automotiveApple teardowns and analysisToyota’s killer firmware: Bad design and its consequencesSlideshow: The most-popular MCUs everBogatin’s Rules Of ThumbCommon op-amp circuitsUnderstanding the basics of setup and hold timeEDN’s Design Ideas Create radio receiver circuits with the LM386 audio amplifier Encode dozens of buttons with only four lines Cancel PWM DAC ripple with analog subtraction Latching power switch uses momentary pushbutton Transcendental resistors simplify precision design Simplify the battery gauge with a 1-dot bar graph display Charge-pump topology doubles voltage, breaks DC pathEDN TeardownsFree PCB ECAD: The Ultimate listFinding a quick-turn PCB shopEDN Moment in Tech HistoryICs of the 1930s & 1940s60 years of electronics through the eyes of EDN4 comments on “Top 10 uses of the Internet”Measurement.Blues March 19, 2018 “A 2016 survey by techboomers reveals the following:nhttps://techboomers.com/t/uses-of-the-internetnn1. Email and personal communicationn2. Social networks and mass communicationn3. General researchn4. Information about hobbies and Interestsn5. Log in to ReplyPaulChau August 14, 2018 “The internet has somehow ingrained itself so deeply into every day life that I think a lot of people forget that they are using it in some of their daily activity. It's so common and expected to be using email and social media that we sometimes don't reme Log in to ReplyStephenGiderson August 31, 2018 “The internet has somehow ingrained itself so deeply into every day life that I think a lot of people forget that they are using it in some of their daily activity. It's so common and expected to be using email and social media that we sometimes don't reme Log in to ReplyAmarpreet Singh October 4, 2018 “Overseeing Twitter is a critical internet based life advertising procedure. There are an assortment of reasons why we are putting such a great amount of accentuation on appropriate administration and setting up of a Twitter. In this way, here we'll list d Log in to ReplyLeave a ReplyYou must Register or Login to post a comment.I will mention that in 2007 the number one use of the internet was pornography, and the number two use was family History/Genealogy.For 2019–2020Pornography StatisticsBelow are a sample of porn stats. Each statistic or quote has been carefully researched and referenced with the original source in our Porn Stats PDF document. In this way, this compilation of stats, quotes, and figures do not act as a last word on the subject, but as a first word, providing a good starting place for your own research.Stats on the Porn Industry“It seems so obvious: If we invent a machine, the first thing we are going to do—after making a profit—is use it to watch porn.” – Damon Brown, Author of Playboy’s Greatest CoversIt’s projected that virtual reality (VR) porn should be a $1 billion business by the year 2025. That’s third behind an expected $1.4 billion virtual reality video game market and $1.23 billion VR NFL-related content.Pornographers are hoping VR porn will boost porn website revenues that have been mostly stagnant from 2010 to 2015. In that time, adult content increased roughly 0.3% to $3.3 billion.In 2006, estimated revenues for sex-related entertainment businesses were just under $13 billion in the US. These estimates included video sales and rentals, Internet sales, cable, pay-per-view, phone sex, exotic dance clubs magazines, and novelty stores.28,258 users are watching pornography every second.$3,075.64 is spent on porn every second on the Internet.88% of scenes in porn films contain acts of physical aggression, and 49% of scenes contain verbal aggression.79% of porn performers have used marijuana, and 50% have used ecstasy.1 in 5 mobile searches are for pornography.“Amateurs come across better on screen. Our customers feel that. Especially by women you can see it. They still feel strong pain.” – Carlo Scalisi, Owner of 21 Sexury VideoThere are higher percentages of subscriptions to porn sites in zip codes that…Are more urban than rural.Have experienced an increase in higher than average household income.Have a great density of young people (age 15-24).Have a higher proportion of people with undergraduate degrees.Have higher measures of social capital (i.e. more people who donate blood, engage in volunteer activities, or participate in community projects).The Most Up-to-Date Pornography StatisticsSorry but I can’t find current usage statistics for Family History/Genealogy.Joseph Smith did NOT copy/plagiarise anything from the 1823 First Edition of Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews. The 1825 Second addition provides evidence, if not proof, of the spread of Hebraic words and culture throughout both American continents. It is available as a free download “voh.pdf” I think from BYU.I haven’t read The Late War. I will Google later.The Late War between the United States and Great BritainFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigation Jump to searchThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)This article needs additional citations for verification.(December 2013)Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable.(December 2013)The Late War between the United States and Great Britain is an educational text written by Gilbert J. Hunt and published in New York in 1816. The Late War is an account of the War of 1812 written in the style of the King James Bible.[1]Contents1 Contents2 3rd Edition Preface3 Association with the Book of Mormon4 References5 External linksContentsThe Late War is a history of the War of 1812. It begins with President James Madison and the congressional declaration of war, writing "James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedrin of the people, who were assembled together." It continues, later describing the Burning of Washington, the Battle of New Orleans, and the Treaty of Ghent.The Late War was written in "biblical style", that is, emulating the style of the King James Bible, and is published with chapter and verse notation.[2]For example, the author introduces the Battle of Queenstown with the text:AND it came to pass, on the morning of the thirteenth day of the tenth month,2 That Stephen, a chief captain of Columbia, sir-named Van Rensselaer, essayed to cross the river which is called Niagara, with his whole army.Near the conclusion of the work, the Battle of New Orleans is described:And it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and fifteenth year of the Christian era, in the first month of the year, and on the eighth day of the month, Being on the Sabbath day, (which, as it is written in the scriptures, Thou shalt remember and keep HOLY,) That the mighty army of the king, which had moved out of the strong ships of Britain, came, in their strength, to make conquest of the territory of Columbia, which lieth to the south ;3rd Edition PrefaceIn the third edition (1819), G J Hunt added a preface encouraging the use of the work in schools:[3]"The reception of it into schools, will render familiar to children the chief actions in the contest [the War], and teach them, at the same time, to respect their country and its institutions.""It seems to me one of the best attempts to imitate the biblical style ; and if the perusal of it can induce young persons to relish and love the sacred books whose language you have imitated, it will be the strongest of all recommendations."Association with the Book of MormonIn the 21st century, speculation arose that The Late War influenced the 1830 work The Book of Mormon. Believers in a miraculous origin for the Book of Mormon dismiss that claim.[1][4]ReferencesPhileas Gagnon. Essai de Bibliographie Canadienne. Quebec. 1895. Volume 1. p 235.Marcus Cunliffe. The Nation Takes Shape: 1789-1837. University of Chicago Press. 1959. p 134.Mason Locke Weems. The Life of Washington. Harvard University Press. 1962. p xliv.Paul A. Gilje. Free Trade and Sailors' Rights in the War of 1812. Cambridge University Press. 2013. p 286.Eran Shalev. American Zion: The Old Testament as a Political Text from the Revolution to the Civil War. Yale University Press. 2013. pp 98 & 99.Benjamin L., McGuire (2013), "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon", Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, 7: 323–35, ISBN 9781494498573From the preface: "It seems to me one of the best attempts to imitate the biblical style""Late war, between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815 : Hunt, Gilbert J : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive". Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine. 2001-03-10. Retrieved 2014-02-28."Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/The Late War - FairMormon". FairMormon. Retrieved 2014-02-28.External linksWikisource has original text related to this article:The late war, between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815Read The Late War at Internet Archive.Internet Archive, to which I belong, has free e-borrowing.A Comparison ofThe Book of MormonandThe Late War Between the United States and Great Britainfirst published Jan 11, 2014last edited Mar 9, 2014Joseph most likely grew up reading a school book called The Late War by Gilbert J. Hunt and it heavily influenced his writing of The Book of Mormon.SummaryIn October 2013, the authors conducted a data analysis comparing The Book of Mormon to over 100,000 books from the pre-1830's era. Out of the top matches, we discovered a book called The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain, a scriptural style account of the War of 1812 published in New York in 1816. Between 1817 and 1819 it was marketed "for the use of schools throughout the United States" under the title The Historical Reader.The Book of MormonAs far as I know Joseph was home-schooled by his father Joseph Smith Sr. As soon as Joseph Jr was fit enough after his leg operation when he was 11 y.o., he was needed to work on the family farm.Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/The Late WarBook of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/The Late War< Book of Mormon‎ | Plagiarism accusationsFairMormon Answers Wiki Table of ContentsWas the Book of Mormon influenced by the language and themes of "The Late War" by Gilbert Hunt?Summary: It has been claimed by critics Chris and Duane Johnson that the Late War is a potential source of influence on Joseph Smith in his "composition" of the Book of Mormon. These articles, along with the much more detailed and in-depth reviews from scholars associated with the Interpreter Foundation, refute these charges. The article from Ben McGuire uses the same statistical method to revise the Johnson's conclusions. The article from Bruce Schaalje uses Bayesian logic to see how likely it is that Joseph used the Late War as a source. The article from Stanford Carmack uses other literary evidence to suggest that the Late War likely played little to no role in the authorship of the Book of Mormon. The articles we have written here take a large swath of specific examples that the Johnson's have pointed to for such "influence" and shows problems and complications with them.Jump to Subtopic:Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize passages from Gilbert Hunt's book The Late War, between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815?Question: Does the Book of Mormon phrase "curious workmanship" originate from Gilbert Hunt's The Late War?Question: Does Gilbert Hunt's The Late War talk of 2000 "striplings" who go to war?Question: Is Gilbert Hunt's phrase "the fourth day of this seventh month" in The Late War a source for the Book of Mormon phrase "the fourth day of this seventh month" in Alma 10:6?Question: Was the Book of Mormon description of a cataclysm at the time of Christ's death derived from a similar description in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War?Question: Are there similarities between the description of forts in the Book of Mormon and Gilbert Hunt's The Late War?Question: Does the Book of Mormon mention "steel" of "fine workmanship" as described in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War?Question: Does the Book of Mormon, like Gilbert Hunt's The Late War, talk of "freemen who came to the defence of the city, built strong holds and forts, and raised up fortifications in abundance"?Question: Were the Three Nephites of the Book of Mormon based upon three of the "lying prophets among the savages" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War?Question: Is there significance to the fact that both the Book of Mormon and Gilbert Hunt's The Late War mention a "rod of iron"?Question: Do both the Book of Mormon and Gilbert Hunt's The Late War talk about people maintaining a "standard of liberty"?Question: How similar are the Late War and the Book of Mormon in their descriptions of Christopher Columbus?Question: Could Gilbert Hunt's The Late War have given Joseph Smith the idea of using brass plates as a way of recording information?Question: Does Gilbert Hunt's The Late War describe "Boats and barges built from trees after the fashion of the ark"?Question: Was the Book of Mormon phrase "it came to pass" derived from Gilbert Hunt's The Late War?Question: Could Joseph Smith have learned about Hebraisms from Gilbert Hunt's "The Late War"?Question: Does Gilbert Hunt's book The Late War contain rare phrases that do not appear in other works but only appear in the Book of Mormon?Question: Could the Book of Mormon been influenced by the Late War in its use of lions in similes?Question: Are the descriptions of Nephi (from the Book of Mormon) and Fulton’s (from The Late War) ships similar enough to suggest authorial relationship?Question: Could the fact that Orson Pratt considered cureloms to possibly be mammoths support the theory that Joseph Smith used Gilbert Hunt's The Late War in "authoring" The Book of Mormon?Question: Are the Book of Mormon's and the Late War's descriptions of travel to "faraway lands" similar enough to suggest an authorial relationship?Question: Are the Book of Mormon and the Late War's descriptions of the pitching of tents similar?Question: Do the Late War and the Book of Mormon describe "burned martyrs" in a similar way?Question: Do the Late War and the Book of Mormon describe a "Spiritual being entering hearts" in a similar way?Question: Do the Late War and the Book of Mormon share a similarity in describing women as "tender"—prey to the lusts of men?Question: Do the Late War and the Book of Mormon describe their battle casualties in a similar way?Question: Is the phrase "a mock and a bye-word among all nations" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "he hearkened unto the counsel of the wicked one" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "it came to pass, that they gathered together" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "and a part thereof" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "about twenty and four" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "and slew seven of" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "and wist not what" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "your women and your children" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "were compelled to flee before" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "to come out against" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "they were like unto" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "they were astonished beyond measure" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Question: Is the phrase "they humbled themselves and" in Gilbert Hunt's The Late War a "rare phrase"?Comparison between Tecumseh/Moriavon Town and Teancum/MoriantonInterpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon"Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "A Bayesian Cease-Fire in the Late War on the Book of Mormon"Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?"Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize passages from Gilbert Hunt's book The Late War, between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815?Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #502: Is the Book of Mormon Like Any Other Nineteenth Century Book? (Video)An assumption is being made that Joseph Smith must have read Gilbert Hunt's The Late War in the absence of any evidence to support itChris Johnson, Duane Johnson, in "A Comparison of The Book of Mormon and The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain,"[1]propose a number of parallel sentence structures between Gilbert Hunt's book The Late War and the Book of Mormon. The authors conclude that Joseph Smith read Hunt's book while in school (without any actual evidence that Joseph ever actually saw the book). They base this conclusion upon the assumption that the book was widely available, and therefore Joseph must have read it. Hence, they conclude that Joseph constructed the Book of Mormon by using structural elements of The Late War. The evidence is presented as a series of comparisons between the Book of Mormon and The Late War.Seventy-five of the parallels identified as significant between the two texts came from the Copyright statements of the two booksSeventy-five of the parallels identified as significant between the two texts came from the Copyright statement. Why? Because the copyright statement was a fill-in-the-blank form. It had a certain set of language that was standardized for the period. So books copyrighted in the same general area at the same general time, such at The Late War and the Book of Mormon, would have nearly identical copyright statements. And this study found 75 parallels between the two. This shouldn't surprise us, because of course, both books had copyright statements that were reliant on a common source. And we can see from this dense material that there is a relationship between the two. But anyone who actually looks at the texts will also see that this has nothing to do with what might be termed the creative content in each work.Most of the similarities occur simply because both The Late War and the Book of Mormon use the language of the King James BibleMost of the similarities occur because they both use the language of the King James Bible. For both, the language choice seems like a stylistic decision (and not determined by the content). And in fact, the Book of Mormon quotes from Isaiah a couple of dozen chapters. This creates a relationship between the Bible and both of these books. The computer model doesn't have a way of separating style or word choice from content and meaning (and both texts can use the same phrase in different ways). We have to read it to realize that while one is simply copying the Bible (mining it for phrases), the other is creating theological discussion by taking a passage and expanding on it. 2 Nephi 2 quotes from Genesis about Adam and Eve, and then goes from there to provide commentary and discussion about the theology involved. The Late War may use the language or even quote from the Old Testament, but it never goes through commentary and theological discussion. That isn't its purpose. Sometimes the same passages get used. The Late War makes references to a specific battle and describes it as a David versus Goliath encounter. The Book of Mormon uses the David and Goliath narrative in an allusion to the Old Testament. They are very, very different ways of using the Old Testament text - even if on the surface, they use the same bit of material. All of this is important because if The Late War served as a model, or lent its language, we would expect perhaps to see other things influenced by it as well. And, we don't. But the computer model isn't capable of judging the quality of the parallels being offered.The authors employ a fallacy that is called the Texas Marksman (or the Texas Bulls Eye)The authors of the study present us these lists of similarities. In presenting this list, we get presented with a fallacy that is called the Texas Marksman (or the Texas Bulls Eye). Essentially, the way the reference works is that you shoot a bunch of rounds into the side of your barn, and then you go up to the holes and paint your target around them (giving you the best and tightest clustering). Usually, the way these models work in accepted applications is that you start by testing the model in situations where you already know the outcome. That way, you can see how reliable your new model is. And if it is highly reliable in known cases, then you can start cautiously applying it to unknown models (you don't create your own target this way).By intuiting that it must be right, this model used with The Late War simply skipped the testing part. But this created one of the biggest obvious problems with the theory. They didn't stop with the Book of Mormon. They ran a test on a Jane Austin novel, and found a source (a relatively unknown book from 1810). Why is this important? Austin was a prolific writer, sending thousands of letters during her lifetime detailing what she was reading, her influences, writing about her writing, and so on. We have a huge body of literature devoted to dealing with her writing (she was one of the most important writers of the period). So when you have a statistical model that produces a brand new source, not noticed by anyone previously, not mentioned in any of her letters, and so on - there ought to be a bit of a red flag raised. But there wasn't. Had this theory been introduced to academic literary theorists - this would have been the major point of dispute (since they don't really care about the Book of Mormon).Furthermore, the methodology employed by the Johnson's itself has been criticized by experts in the field. Consider the thoughts of Harold Love on the work of Donald W. Foster, who argued for the authorship of Shakespeare of an unattributed poem from 1612 using "a trawling of the vast electronic databases now available in search of phrasal parallels and rare vocabulary"[2]:"Instead of using the mathematics of probability to compare frequencies of stylistic usage, the new attributionists look on the widest of available scales for characteristic words and word clusters, which are assumed either to be conscious recollections of earlier texts (including those of the same author) or subconscious examples of authorial idiolect." ("Attributing Authorship" p. 149)Love further critiqued the methodology, saying:"considered as a method for establishing attributions for older texts, it runs all the dangers that Greg and Schoenbaum identified with the ‘parallelographic school’ of the early twentieth century. Chief among these is knowing when a similarity in expression actually constitutes a parallel close enough to be enrolled as evidence for derivation or common authorship" ("Attributing Authorship" p. 148).And also noted:"What I will call as a convenient shorthand the ‘memory mechanism’ approach, with all its promise, offers no formal method of verification, but relies on the inherent plausibility or implausibility of the patterns presented." ("Attributing Authorship" p. 151)Did this model that the Johnson's used really find a previously unknown and unidentified source of Jane Austin's work? Or did it simply create the illusion of doing this by painting a bulls eye after clustering its data? Scholarly analysis places confidence in the latter position (as a side note, discovering a new source for Jane Austin would be a thesis-significant sort of discovery). The paper the Johnsons wrote was submitted to Dialogue (who are usually sympathetic, given the purpose of the journal, to these types of claims and theories) yet they rejected the proposal. All indications would tell us that the methodology used to establish connections between The Late War and and the Book of Mormon is dubious and the supposed parallels of the same caliber.Look,(1) Joseph Smith was too poor to buy any books.(2) There was a library several miles away from Joseph’s home, but there is no record of him ever being a member. I think in those days you had to pay for membership, as well as pay late fees. He wouldn’t had a dime or nickel or to spare for “frivolities”.(3) Once Joseph got back into the “swing” of translation, he only took 65 days with the help of the Holy Spirit, to finish the translation.There is no way that Joseph had the raw intelligence and education to speed read both weeks.Joseph’s wife Emma stated that Joseph couldn't write a decent letter without help.(4) The issue of the authenticity of The Book of Mormon was first raised in the 1920’s.It was researched by Elder B.H. Roberts of the Council of the Seventy.His scholarship in producing his two manuscripts was mediocre.For example, he only read the 1823 First Edition of View of the Hebrews, but if he had bothered to study the 1825 Second Edition he would have found evidence, if not proof, of Hebraic words and culture across both of the American continents.Also, once the First Presidency and The Council of the Twelve (Apostles) decided that they didn’t have time to study and review their Roberts’ manuscript, even though they requested it, the manuscript, it should have been put the vault or destroyed.Roberts’ second manuscript, not published until 1985, should also have been destroyed by Roberts prior to his death. He doesn’t draw any conclusions, which I consider cowardly scholarship.If you are going to write something which requires answers to questions, have both the morality and intestinal fortitude to write conclusions.This is the only fault which I can find in Brother Roberts’ service to The Lord.In Doctrine and Covenants 64:9–10 The Lord states “I will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all [people]. (you can find it at Doctrine and Covenants 64I hope this answers your question.