Assessing the Future Viability of Bitcoin: Opportunities and Implications in Global Finance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bitcoin as a digital currency enables direct online transactions between parties, eliminating the requirement for traditional financial institutions. Opinions on Bitcoin vary, with some seeing it as a potential game-changer for finance, while others see it as a speculative asset that poses risks to global financial stability. However, the concept of e-currency is evolving and gaining traction, Bitcoin has become the most prominent and widely accepted form of online payment. Each Bitcoin is represented as a unique digital entry in a virtual wallet on a device, enabling users to send and receive bitcoins. Every bitcoin transaction is logged in a public list called the blockchain, allowing for transparent tracking of ownership and preventing unauthorized transactions. Bitcoins have value on their own, facilitating global transactions between parties without revealing your identity. Nations such as the US, Canada and Australia have established regulatory guidelines for Bitcoin, its legitimacy is limited to specific contexts and remains distinct from their official currencies. The objective of the current paper is to examine the long-term viability of Bitcoin and evaluate the likelihood of it being an internet bubble
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".