Bitcoin Wealth Distribution (Bitcoinica data) - page 3.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 07:05:13 PM

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 06:58:12 PM

So, properly read, a stat like "the top 1% own 50% of the wealth" should be understood as "the top 1% produced 50% of the wealth"... and then with that understanding it quite quickly shows the folly of policies which punish, tax, and otherwise hinder such people. It also illustrates the sheer productive uselessness of vast swaths of the population.

Not under a system which permits usury and 'employment'

That's irrelevant for bitcoin though. But be warned: Angy mobs normally lynch people who express this kind of attitude publicly...

Indeed. History shows that wealth does get distributed periodically through one means or another. I'm a Socialist very much for practical reasons associated with the frequency and manner in which the deed ends up getting done.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

I am against the prohibition of anything except violence. I was more referring to a systematic approach where such a relationship would be undesirable and unnecessary.

Yes I think it should be unlawful to charge interest. (Law as mutually agreed ethics, and there is a wide historic agreement on this subject)
Interest imo is a kind of financial violence.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 07:05:13 PM

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 06:58:12 PM

So, properly read, a stat like "the top 1% own 50% of the wealth" should be understood as "the top 1% produced 50% of the wealth"... and then with that understanding it quite quickly shows the folly of policies which punish, tax, and otherwise hinder such people. It also illustrates the sheer productive uselessness of vast swaths of the population.

Not under a system which permits usury and 'employment'

That's irrelevant for bitcoin though. But be warned: Angy mobs normally lynch people who express this kind of attitude publicly...

Hehehehe you'd prefer a system which prohibited employment and forbid one man from offering his wealth to another man at a mutually-agreed price for the opportunity cost of the usage of that wealth?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 06:58:12 PM

So, properly read, a stat like "the top 1% own 50% of the wealth" should be understood as "the top 1% produced 50% of the wealth"... and then with that understanding it quite quickly shows the folly of policies which punish, tax, and otherwise hinder such people. It also illustrates the sheer productive uselessness of vast swaths of the population.

Not under a system which permits usury and 'employment'

That's irrelevant for bitcoin though. But be warned: Angy mobs normally lynch people who express this kind of attitude publicly...

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

The proper way to read "wealth distribution" statistics is simply to replace the word "own" with the word "produce," for in a market economy the money one owns he (typically) had to produce something for, in order to obtain that money. The worker produces labor and trades it. The merchant produces transportation and logistics and trades it. The manufacturer produces physical items. The cook produces dinner, the politician produces problems, etc.

One's wealth measured in dollars is thus a rough proxy measurement of what they produced, as valued by the person who previously owned that money and traded it in return.

So, properly read, a stat like "the top 1% own 50% of the wealth" should be understood as "the top 1% produced 50% of the wealth"... and then with that understanding it quite quickly shows the folly of policies which punish, tax, and otherwise hinder such people. It also illustrates the sheer productive uselessness of vast swaths of the population.

Andrew Vorobyov

hero member

Activity: 558

Merit: 500

Quote from: Cryptoman on November 06, 2011, 12:46:05 PM

The other message you could take away from this data is that only 1% of the people are careless enough to leave large amounts of BTC on a trading site.

True.. Lack of guarantees

Aldun

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Wow, that's quite interesting to see. That would mean 0.3% actually owns 20% of the Bitcoins if I'm reading the statistics right?

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: 2_Thumbs_Up on November 06, 2011, 07:33:37 AM

Quote from: zhoutong on November 06, 2011, 12:23:31 AM

In the whole Bitcoin world, it's the same - 1% owns half.

When bitcoin was one day old, 1 person owned 100%. I'd say the market seems to be evening things out.

LOL, perfect!

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: BitcoinMint.US on November 06, 2011, 12:50:12 PM

So it's safe to say that 50% of bitcoinica's users lost all their money?

Yeah, most people lose or withdraw all their money, it's not that interesting.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: zhoutong on November 06, 2011, 12:23:31 AM

Quote from: evoorhees on November 05, 2011, 11:56:30 PM

So 1% of the people have half the wealth!??! That's not FAIR!!!!

::grabs pitchfork and heads for Singapore::

In the whole Bitcoin world, it's the same - 1% owns half.

D*mn that 1%! they should be Zhoutawnged!

BitcoinMint.US

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 251

So it's safe to say that 50% of bitcoinica's users lost all their money?

Cryptoman

hero member

Activity: 726

Merit: 500

The other message you could take away from this data is that only 1% of the people are careless enough to leave large amounts of BTC on a trading site.

wareen

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1001

Revolutionizing Brokerage of Personal Data

I think such comparisons are a bit moot at this point. The price of Bitcoin is so low that almost everybody can be a part of the 1% if he/she wants to. There are simply not that many people wanting to hold Bitcoin as an investment. Also, if the price would rise, I'd expect some of the larger holders to cash out.

As I keep saying: Bitcoin won't make the inequalities of this world to magically disappear!
But as Bitcoin does not have a mechanism built in that constantly worsens this inequality, the long term prospects are surely much better than with traditional currencies.

2_Thumbs_Up

sr. member

Activity: 323

Merit: 251

Quote from: zhoutong on November 06, 2011, 12:23:31 AM

In the whole Bitcoin world, it's the same - 1% owns half.

When bitcoin was one day old, 1 person owned 100%. I'd say the market seems to be evening things out.

oOoOo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: zhoutong on November 06, 2011, 12:23:31 AM

In the whole Bitcoin world, it's the same - 1% owns half.

It's not the same.

In the Bitcoin World 1% may own 50% of all coins, however, unlike in the "Real World" they didn't acquire those 50% through swindles, frauds and crimes.

.

finway

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500