Topic: Distribution of bitcoin wealth by owner - page 12. (Read 153396 times)

Bitcoin is gonna be listed on Nasdaq [on Wall Street]. [i was the only human on earth last year saying the Public ETF was a guarantee].

The Banks own Wall Street.

Do you really need to wait for 2015 before realizing what's happening?


[hi, kelsey]

Vlad2Vlad, you've made a lot of claims, even stating that some things are "absolutely true." Do you have any sources or evidence for any of them? I would love to see anything to support the claim that banks are getting into bitcoin, since that would raise its value substantially, but everything I have been reading so far only suggests that banks are extremely weary of it, and only certain bankers and investors have personal holdings, not the banks themselves.

Early adopters aside the only ones to ever now be wealthy in bitcoin are those already wealthy in fiat. So from now on any re-distribution can only ever be as 'fair' as fiat  .

This is absolutely true.

The power players have been buying a lot of Bitcoin over the past 6 months. Even though the price has been dropping, professional traders can make it happen with relative ease.  And Bitcoin millionaires who took some profits at $1200 surely bought back even more so the consolidation of power is even more so now than it was last year.

But this is to be expected.

I would add that I'm sure Bitcoin has also added many more holders to its distribution, although most are probably very small holders (1-10 BTC), basically gambling on Bitcoin.

I'm curious to know how the distribution of wealth has changed over the last month where we have had very little volatility.   It is my default assumption that during most crashes, the distribution of BTC becomes more and more top heavy.   I think this is because in times of steep price declines, the smaller holders are typically the ones crying and panic selling, while the more seasoned heavy hitters are continuing to scoop up more BTC at what is considered to be a major discount (or even a clearance sale).

I would think that during flat markets the distribution of BTC stays pretty stagnant, since there is less selling and buying currently going on (as exchange charts depict).

That's only right in theory.  Unfortunately it fails in the real world.

Money begets Power.  And there's already a massive anonymous pool growing at a massive pace.

You wanna guess who's probably running that pool?

Hint:  Banks were getting bids from ASICS manufacturers a while ago.

And the big money of the world organize coups all the time of entire nations.  How hard do you think it would be for these people to take over just 1 of the 3 larger pools.

It's gonna be a cake-walk to control every aspect of Bitcoin [or Any Coin that Rises in its place]:  From Mining to Ownership to The Foundation [the Bitcoin Protocol].


In fact, it's already done.

The awesome thing about Proof of Work versus Proof of Stake is that this wealth centralization does not equal control/power centralization over bitcoin. Miners are still in control. Had Bitcoin been Proof of Stake, I'd be worried.

To be honest I'm only guessing.

The reasons are this.

-  BTC had an ultra low mining difficulty period for around 2 years and even after that there was maybe 1 additional year with fairly low mining difficulty, and given there were few miners there was a lot of Bitcoins going in very few wallets.

-  By contrast, iXcoin, only had low difficulty for around 6 months after-which merge mining kicked in and it became very hard to mine IXC in large quantities and the number of merge miners over the last 2 years numbered easily in the tens of thousands or possibly a lot higher.  That's a long time and a lot of people who have accumulated some IXC.

-  Also, IXC has been seen as a dead or worthless coin so people have not accumulated (bought) it in large quantities and neither have miners sold off the little iXcoin they may have had.  As opposed to BTC which was the only game in town so the people who were into cryptos had little else to buy.

For these reasons I think IXC has at least 10,000-50,000 individuals [and maybe well over 100,000] with at least a few hundred [to a few thousand] IXC in their wallets which they've mostly forgotten about, cause it wasn't worth selling nor was it ever a hot or pumped coin to consider swapping out for a different coin.

So imagine if that many people had that many Bitcoins, if Bitcoin created some 10,000 to 50,000 [or more] multi millionaires.  That would have a massive uplifting effect on all cryptos (more than even Bitcoin has] and on the economy as well.


Which leads me back to the hidden message in iXcoin:  "The Twin to Lift up the Colonies".

Before anyone laughs and dismisses that hidden message, remember, Bitcoin also has a hidden message in the dev's name:  "Clearly Thinking inside the Foundation."

I wish I had the money cause I would pay someone to do the same research you have done for Bitcoin.  Because it does make sense to me but without proof it's hard to really stand behind it with any conviction.

Good that you both realize it!

Otherwise Vlad2Vlad contribution is welcome.

But I find it truly impossible to believe that any coin would have a more equal distribution than Bitcoin with its 1,400 owners owning 50%. Does any coin come even close?

Sadly I only have 2 bitcoin in total

This is not an iXcoin thread.

If you want to discuss iXcoin there are lots of ways to do it.

Thanks.

Bitcoin is the most useful because it can actually be used to buy things from thousands of merchants online and around the world, and it is the most innovative because it was the first cryptocurrency.


Is iXcoin ultra-secure because of merge-mining?

Where can I find information about the current distribution and usage of iXcoin?

What is the best way to acquire iXcoin?

Are you really going to design/implement all of those advanced features yourself or is there a high-quality team working on it?

It's funny, everyone says that [and I can see why] but do you realize what you just said?

You just said Bitcoin is one of the least useful and innovative coins.

So you must not know yet [what open source means] that I can put any "innovation" and "features" into iXcoin, which is exactly what I plan to do with Colored Coins, Counter Party and any other wonderful thing that comes out.  

And I'll do it ahead of Bitcoin cause iXcoin has no red tape and no Foundation to get in the way.

iXcoin is the only TWIN of Bitcoin.

But it's better, it's more liquid, with all 21 million coins done in the next 4 months, it has ZERO bad press and no horrible actors and image problems and it is more evenly distributed than Bitcoin.

So whatever you think Bitcoin is, iXcoin is exactly that and then better and soon, iXcoin will be much more advanced than any coin, even Bitcoin, while being one of few coins offering an ultra secure network.

Now if you were JP Morgan, wouldn't you notice this and use it to compete with Bitcoin, just in case hi-jacking Bitcoin doesn't work out as planned, or in case 2 coins is better [short term]?

Is there any evidence that the banks or "Wal Street" (whatever that means) are buying bitcoins for themselves?  Any public news?

SecondMarket's BIT and Pantera's PBP do not buy for themselves; they only skim fees from common investors who buy bitcoins through them.  It is these investors who bear all the risk.

Fortress had invested in Bitcoin, but it only gave them a red stain in their quarterly report.  I read that they gave their bitcoins to Pantera in exchange for equity in their fund management company -- which, like SMBIT and PBP, will make money for the managers no matter what happens to the bitcoin price.

Bitpay stated that they do not keep any bitcoins themselves.  So, who are those "Wall Street' investors?

It is quite likely that banks and/or credit card companies will eventually adopt the offline key/address generation method and crypto-signed "digital checks", which is the only part of the crytocurrency concept that is obviously a win.  However, a bank-managed crytpocurrency will not need any of the other parts of the Bitcoin protocol, such as mining and distributed confirmation by voting; and therefore would be much faster and more resource-efficient (hence cheaper to operate, hence could drive Bitcoin out of the "market" just by making more profit with lower fees).

Indeed, by negating some of Bitcoin's "features" (such as irreversibility, anonymity, and immunity to confiscation) such a BankCoin will be better than Bitcoin from the consumer and/or law enforcement viewpoints.  Once such a law- and consumer-friendly BankCoin is available, governments will surely outlaw the "Bitcoin International Bank" (the miner network) for not complying with AML, KYC, etc. 

I would hate this outcome, but I can't see why it could not happen.

I just spent a few minutes learning about IXcoin advertised in your signature. From the information I have been able to gather, it seems to be one of the least useful or innovative coins in existence, but your signature says it is the next Bitcoin. Your theory of Bitcoin's death by centralization seems plausible, but in light of your absurd endorsement of IXcoin, your credibility is diminished. If I am wrong, please show me why.

I wanna respect the scope and direction the OP had in mind with this thread so I'll keep it short and not continue on this tangent.  If you're serious you can PM me.

A) I'm not smoking anything.

B) I don't want anything per sé.

C) I only want the truth because that's the only way you'll make money (in the long run) on this Crypto Phenomenon.

That said, I don't have an agenda.  If Bitcoin is the one, great, I want in.

If Bitcoin is now centralized and the whole world will realize it by Christmas, then I'd prefer to figure it out before the herd and stay ahead of the curve.

Finally, I said last year, before there was any evidence, that Bitcoin was NOT anonymous, NOT decentralized and was being secretly accumulated by Banks, Hedge Funds, MNCs, etc., and I was called insane cause experts like Roger Ver and Andreas Antonopolous were telling people the exact opposite.

That Banks, Hedge Funds, etc., hated Bitcoin and that the state could never control Bitcoin.  Andreas actually blocked me on twitter when I tried to explain to him that the truth was the exact opposite of what the lies he was propagating. 

I call them lies cause a guy with his knowledge and insider info should have figured it out way before me.  So Andreas et al are either all incompetent or simply liars.  I think the latter is the most probable.

What's shocking to me is that we now know a lot more than last year, things which I predicted last year only to me called crazy.

So for guys like you to still not grasp what's really happening now, after all the events of the past 6 months, well, I really have no words to alleviate your blindness.

Good luck!

The price of bitcoin can be "manipulated" like most markets but at least the manipulation by banks and government agencies are not working too well and it gives back some power to the people

As long as you don't spend it, your bitcoins can stay anonymous and you can go to an other country and buy a car or a house there if your government is too greedy

You can obviously sell small amounts of bitcoins quite discretely if you want to

At some point you will have to spend the bitcoins or convert them to cash.  How can you buy a house or a car anonymously? How can you get half a million dollars in cash anonymously?


Indeed, only you and the tumbler's operator will know that.

I think you can anonymise your bitcoins if you want to.

Let's say you buy cash without using your name : how would those bitcoins be related to you if you create the wallet through an IP that doesn't direct to your name?
If you use a tumbler you can anonymise your bitcoins as well : they would know you had them but they wouldn't know where they are now and what you did with them
If you mine you get anonymous bitcoins as well