. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Le Happy Merchant

hero member

Activity: 634

Merit: 500

Quote from: Wekkel on March 30, 2013, 01:39:07 AM

And now what if we imposed the Pareto rule on the Pareto rule itself: would the distribution be 64 of 80 and 4 of 20?

The top 20% of the top 20% have 80% of the top 20%'s Bitcoins, while the bottom 80% of the bottom 80% have only 20% of the bottom 80%'s Bitcoins.

Makes sense to me, I give it nine ten-out-of-tens out of ten.

Wekkel

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 1538

yes

And now what if we imposed the Pareto rule on the Pareto rule itself: would the distribution be 64 of 80 and 4 of 20?

Le Happy Merchant

hero member

Activity: 634

Merit: 500

Quote from: benjamindees on March 30, 2013, 12:48:54 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

It is not the price that determines the distribution, but the distribution that determines the price.

In the long run. In the short run, people want to use Bitcoin when the price goes up.

I'm sure you could make this argument for the people who have them and want to spend them, but I'm not so sure about merchants.

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

It is not the price that determines the distribution, but the distribution that determines the price.

In the long run. In the short run, people want to use Bitcoin when the price goes up.

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

OP said "at this time".

Ah, I see. I missed that. Still, it's more complicated than that. By buying Bitcoins, am I preventing others from having them, or am I helping to distribute them? Would Bitcoins be more widely distributed at a low price, or at a high one? If the Bitcoins don't already exist, then what are the miners "mining"?

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1002

6.73 billion people / 21 million bitcoins == 322 people per Bitcoin Wink

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1002

Funny thread. No one bothered to notice that the math is off by a factor of 2.

Rygon

hero member

Activity: 520

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Bitium on March 29, 2013, 03:20:51 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

While we are engaged in rhetorical gymnastics...

Given a Pareto type exponential distribution this is an estimate of how Bitcoin wealth distribution might shake out once all 21,000,000 BTC are generated. The table shows the population of each wealth group and the approximate BTC wealth that each member of that group would hold. It shows about half of all BTC wealth being controlled by some 4,000 individuals. 80% being controlled by only 1.5 billion people. With entry to "Middle Class", and even the "1%" being marked by an amount of BTC wealth that we would consider to be a transaction fee today. And the rest living on "dust".

1
7
31
155
771
3,843
19,203
96,003
480,003
2,400,003
12,000,003
60,000,003
300,000,003
1,500,000,003
5,500,000,003

923,589.76733184 BTC
32,985.34883328 BTC
9,310.38071907 BTC
2,327.59517977 BTC
584.91772514 BTC
146.68604153 BTC
36.69442650 BTC
9.17475329 BTC
2.29374566 BTC
0.57343928 BTC
0.14335996 BTC
0.03584000 BTC
0.00896000 BTC
0.00224000 BTC
0.00076364 BTC

I'm reading about Pareto Distribution now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

I'm curious, for the figures above, how did you choose xm and alpha?

I just used the 80:20 rule, which would be an alpha of about 1.16. It's often used for doing off-the-cuff extrapolations like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_index

xm would just be unity, as in one indivisible person, which is probably not accurate because that sample is way out on the tail but it is fun to speculate what the richest person in the world would end up with. It is not quite as fun to see what the poorest person in the world would be left with, so the poorest 20% are lumped together in that sample. Exactly how divisible Bitcoin is would have little bearing on the nature of the distribution, which tends to hold up for global populations no matter what you do. You can also do it the other way, where xm is one satoshi.

+1 to this analysis. I've seen two studies done with the distribution of coins across addresses, and it closely follows an 80/20 Pareto distribution. There was another good study a year or two back on some larger transactions that showed how someone with access to a very large amount of coins spread them out over several dozen smaller addresses. Sorry, I can’t find any of those articles right now.

I think it’s more realistic to calculate the distribution over 10 million people, since that’s a more realistic scenario anytime in the near future. For fun, I think about the total bitcoin balance as “experience” like in a game or something. As my BTC increases, I “level up” everytime it gets to be enough to fit into a higher tranch on the Pareto distribution. That’s roughly everytime the BTC balance increases by 4X.

Bitium

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 0

Quote from: ?? on ??

While we are engaged in rhetorical gymnastics...

Given a Pareto type exponential distribution this is an estimate of how Bitcoin wealth distribution might shake out once all 21,000,000 BTC are generated. The table shows the population of each wealth group and the approximate BTC wealth that each member of that group would hold. It shows about half of all BTC wealth being controlled by some 4,000 individuals. 80% being controlled by only 1.5 billion people. With entry to "Middle Class", and even the "1%" being marked by an amount of BTC wealth that we would consider to be a transaction fee today. And the rest living on "dust".

1
7
31
155
771
3,843
19,203
96,003
480,003
2,400,003
12,000,003
60,000,003
300,000,003
1,500,000,003
5,500,000,003

923,589.76733184 BTC
32,985.34883328 BTC
9,310.38071907 BTC
2,327.59517977 BTC
584.91772514 BTC
146.68604153 BTC
36.69442650 BTC
9.17475329 BTC
2.29374566 BTC
0.57343928 BTC
0.14335996 BTC
0.03584000 BTC
0.00896000 BTC
0.00224000 BTC
0.00076364 BTC

I'm reading about Pareto Distribution now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

I'm curious, for the figures above, how did you choose xm and alpha?

b!z

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1010

But bitcoins are infinitely divisible..

foo

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

While we are engaged in rhetorical gymnastics...

Given a Pareto type exponential distribution this is an estimate of how Bitcoin wealth distribution might shake out once all 21,000,000 BTC are generated. The table shows the population of each wealth group and the approximate BTC wealth that each member of that group would hold. It shows about half of all BTC wealth being controlled by some 4,000 individuals. 80% being controlled by only 1.5 billion people. With entry to "Middle Class", and even the "1%" being marked by an amount of BTC wealth that we would consider to be a transaction fee today. And the rest living on "dust".

1
7
31
155
771
3,843
19,203
96,003
480,003
2,400,003
12,000,003
60,000,003
300,000,003
1,500,000,003
5,500,000,003

923,589.76733184 BTC
32,985.34883328 BTC
9,310.38071907 BTC
2,327.59517977 BTC
584.91772514 BTC
146.68604153 BTC
36.69442650 BTC
9.17475329 BTC
2.29374566 BTC
0.57343928 BTC
0.14335996 BTC
0.03584000 BTC
0.00896000 BTC
0.00224000 BTC
0.00076364 BTC

If the entire world is using Bitcoin we will surely have switched to µBTC already.

In that case the poorest 5.5 billion in your table gets 763.64 each. That doesn't sound too bad now does it?

Spaceman_Spiff

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

₪``Campaign Manager´´₪

Haha, I like them numbers.

Apart from that: is this the new 'gentleman , I think we are...' thread?

thefiniteidea

hero member

Activity: 509

Merit: 564

"In Us We Trust"

Quote from: oakpacific on March 28, 2013, 11:04:25 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

One can always trust chodpaba to mess up the best trollolo with hard cold math and economic theory.

He was trying to show you how many chairs you need to prepare for your club meetings. Grin

I must admit to having been convinced of a lol being necessary in response to this comment.

I will now sit down at my chair marked #10,000.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

One can always trust chodpaba to mess up the best trollolo with hard cold math and economic theory.

He was trying to show you how many chairs you need to prepare for your club meetings. Grin

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

While we are engaged in rhetorical gymnastics...

Given a Pareto type exponential distribution this is an estimate of how Bitcoin wealth distribution might shake out once all 21,000,000 BTC are generated. The table shows the population of each wealth group and the approximate BTC wealth that each member of that group would hold. It shows about half of all BTC wealth being controlled by some 4,000 individuals. 80% being controlled by only 1.5 billion people. With entry to "Middle Class", and even the "1%" being marked by an amount of BTC wealth that we would consider to be a transaction fee today. And the rest living on "dust".

1
7
31
155
771
3,843
19,203
96,003
480,003
2,400,003
12,000,003
60,000,003
300,000,003
1,500,000,003
5,500,000,003

923,589.76733184 BTC
32,985.34883328 BTC
9,310.38071907 BTC
2,327.59517977 BTC
584.91772514 BTC
146.68604153 BTC
36.69442650 BTC
9.17475329 BTC
2.29374566 BTC
0.57343928 BTC
0.14335996 BTC
0.03584000 BTC
0.00896000 BTC
0.00224000 BTC
0.00076364 BTC

Or else: the bitcoin wealth distribution atm is actually much more fair than that of the old-world wealths.

Tirapon

hero member

Activity: 898

Merit: 1000

By saving money you are depriving others of that money. Go and spend it on things and don't save, you are being selfish.

Rothgar

sr. member

Activity: 374

Merit: 250

Tune in to Neocash Radio

Quote from: Vladimir on March 28, 2013, 09:58:44 AM

There are about 0.0015 BTC per human being on this planet at this time. Therefore, by buying 1 BTC you are depriving 666 human beings from owning their fair share of bitcoins. Evilness of those who hoard thousands of BTC is simply despicable. Mu-ha-ha.

Not necessarily maybe I'll sell them .0015 for a low $200 or something like that.

rayvellest

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 10

The goal is to own all the Bitcoins. There can be only one!

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

That is why you should sell some now. If you think you need a reason think bubble pops

Peter Lambert

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

Quote from: Vladimir on March 28, 2013, 09:58:44 AM

There are about 0.0015 BTC per human being on this planet at this time. Therefore, by buying 1 BTC you are depriving 666 human beings from owning their fair share of bitcoins. Evilness of those who hoard thousands of BTC is simply despicable. Mu-ha-ha.

I am not depriving anybody of anything. They can buy those mB (millibits) from me later on.

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1029

Quote from: Vladimir on March 28, 2013, 09:58:44 AM

There are about 0.0015 BTC per human being on this planet at this time. Therefore, by buying 1 BTC you are depriving 666 human beings from owning their fair share of bitcoins. Evilness of those who hoard thousands of BTC is simply despicable. Mu-ha-ha.

In all seriousness I have actually thought of this as a model to value BTC

essentially, if every one needs 1 BTC, is worth that multiplier of people. so 1BTC = the net worth of say 500 people. However it has to be the average 500 people and so not that high, say 1000K each given you are including children, economically deprived countries, but also some of te 5% ultra rich are in there.

so 1 BTC = 500 * 1000

gives 500K per BTC

but you have to divide this by market penetration, which is say 5% 25K

this may give a order of magnitude either way to say, 2.5 K to 250K is reasonable per BTC, to put absolute limits on BTC value

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

I just bought 1 BTC and distributed them evenly to 666 people.

Now I am without BTC Sad

siggy

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 250

Quote from: str4wm4n on March 28, 2013, 01:28:30 PM

in the top 100,000? i'll take them odds

Yeah... Keep in mind that is the mathmatical absolute worse case scenario of all 21M BTC mined, and distributed evenly. In reality I'm thinking 210 will prolly get you in the top 10,000 ...

I know there is a list of top 410 addresses floating around the forums someplace.. does anyone have an expanded list?

Unfortnately, like many here, I just didn't fully grok bitcoin till it was to late. I get this sinking feeling every time I think about how many mined coins I sold between $2 and $20

Had I held, I could have been 1% of 1% (2100 BTC) .. I think this is called the Vladimer club..

Sigg

str4wm4n

legendary

Activity: 1611

Merit: 1001

in the top 100,000? i'll take them odds

siggy

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 250

Quote from: Mike Christ on March 28, 2013, 10:01:05 AM

One day I'll have enough cash to buy people Cheesy

to be one of the 21 million...feels good.

210 BTC: .1% of 1% or in other words, one of the top 100,000 ..

210 BTC ... at the going rate, 666 x 210 = approx 139,000 .. I could have my own smallish country.. hrmm.. Siglantia.. has a nice ring to it

.. my subjects would be Siglantians ...

I'm thinking smallish tropical island someplace ..

Emperor Siggy .. has a nice ring to it

Grin

hold on.. some guys in white coats knocking at my door.. be right ba....

Mark Oates

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100