Translation: Vlad was right and Bitcoin is very poorly distributed with the large majority of wealth in the hands of a few, thus making Bitcoin very much centralized and eerily similar to a Fiat 2.0.
That's just my guess of course and the true, freedom loving libertarians on this thread will surely delete this message.
We have this whole thread to discuss about it, so there is no need to delete anything, but how about supporting your conclusion with some data? Repetition without proof is propaganda, not research.
If I recall correctly one website, the dispersion of bitcoins is wider than with any
altcoins (let's use the % of coins owned by TOP-50 people or addresses).
From my studies, the distribution of
gold is very centralized, as an example, the gold reserves of Ukraine were flown to the States shortly after the coup. They will never get them back, as well as Germany is not getting theirs, or Finland hers or even U.S. people can not even see or audit the gold that was taken from them in 1933. If we take the TOP-50 entities that own gold, they easily account for 90% or more of all physical gold. Note: I am including the banking cabal as the top holder because they control the gold via possession, regardless where it is stolen from.
Silver is currently not so important, and its distribution is likely much more dispersed than that of gold but concentrated nevertheless.
Fiat is the worst of all - because fiat is based on debt, the "sum of all fiat" is actually negative. The ones running the system have total control over it, and in some countries more than half of people have actually more debt than cash balances!
Rothschilds control almost every central bank, most commercial banks and the majority of industrial
corporations in the 1st world.
Among the alternatives,
Bitcoin is doing really well. No matter which sort of cabal we assume is controlling Bitcoin, the distribution cannot be nearly as "bad" (=concentrated) as that of gold or fiat. The TOP-50 entities owning bitcoins have between 25-50% of the coins, not more.
Concentration of power is a fact, it is like a natural law. It is a product of having the freedom to exercise your talent and act shrewdly/frugally. Of course in the very top of the pyramid, the people there tend to be quite ruthless and sociopathic, but there is not much we can do about it. In a free economy their quest for power and riches will necessarily benefit others, in any other society they are detrimental to others' welfare. Bitcoin is a coin for the free, and I have great expectations that large balances of some people cannot be used as tools of evil, any more than the gold in the walls of the temple of Salomon.
A guess how many people have more than 100 BTC?
Not sure, I'd guess a few thousand. Max, 5,000 people.
.
But as a %, the handful of people at the top who easily own at least 25%, has gone up exponentially given the fraction of supposed accounts on Gox.
Gox average # of coins was
BTC10-
BTC12 (depending whether you count microholdings). Since Gox is an exchange of the past, when # of coins were bigger, it should have higher average balance than the general holder. Otoh, many don't keep all their coins in an exchange (although many do). If we assume that these two cancel each other, so that Gox account distribution is roughly equal to general account distribution, it would mean
1.0-1.2 million owners of bitcoins total.
In other words, I don't see that the gox revelation had the effect you're positing. On the contrary, though gox lied, this also confirmed that the number of bitcoinholders is at least 0.5 million for sure, otherwise the coins don't add up (I had feared that gox lost 2-3 million coins instead of <1M).
Look, I don't have a personal problem with it, you would expect that to be the case given bitcoin was so easy to mine for some 2 years but not many knew or believed in it. That very nature of the matter created the current distribution. With time it's possible that will change but right now the super rich are accumulating so that will further centralize the power of bitcoin in the hands of a few.
In my understanding, the very big holders are not really the people who mined in 2010 or bought in 2011. The early adopter advantage is a myth. A myth. There is no special class of people that saw everything and just made the right moves and sat on the coins. All the time since the end of 2010, newcomers have complained that the previouscomers are privileged. If you buy now, you are an early adopter in the eyes of people who enter at $7,000. If you don't believe, check whether you think $65 last summer was a good entry or not. Many have made money and sold off. If you mined/bought resolutely (like I did) and hold till this day, you are rich. That is true. But you could do it in January 2013 as well as any prior time. The early adopter advantage is a myth.
A different matter is that the super-rich are never selling, but that is what they always do. They buy land, and don't sell. They buy gold, and don't sell. Vatican owns 1/3 of Rome, and don't sell. That is a virtuous cycle, part of the reason why these assets are valuable, and the recognition of it.
Would the banking cabal buy dogecoin?
Even we don't really know what we are in for yet I believe.
