Pages:
Author

Topic: Distribution of bitcoin wealth by owner - page 17. (Read 153396 times)

donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
MtGox leak analyzed

Code:
69266 951441
mBTC+ # #BTC avg
10 000k 5 130 809 26161,8000
1 000k 96 212 762 2216,2708
100 000 1266 318 490 251,5719
10 000 7291 219 331 30,0824
1 000 17851 62 630 3,5085
100 16389 6 834 0,4170
10 13675 528 0,0386
1 12693 57 0,0045


It seems that among the claimed 1 million Mt.Gox users, there was 69266 accounts with a balance of at least 1mBTC. In total, they were supposed to hold BTC951,441.

- This is 13,744mBTC per holder, which is more than double the average general holding of 5,900mBTC.
- The median of about 500mBTC was significantly higher than the general median of only 70mBTC.
- Distribution parameter j was found to be between 0.34-0.42 whereas it was assumed to be 0.25 when making the last general distribution. Adopting this makes the distribution more "middle-classed" as the bulge in the middle sized holdings is higher.
- In general the results confirmed the distribution model.

=> Due to findings above ("j", median, and the fact that Gox had only 70,000 customers despite the claims), I will be prompted to revise the Bitcoin # number of users downward from the 2.0 million in the previous month.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
rpietila, is there any reason why there was no February update?

He is partying at his castle.

That is one. Another one is that we are trying to develop a methodology to derive the same statistics for every month back in time since Bitcoin's inception. It takes some time but will give us 58 results instead of one Smiley
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
So is this list of distribution only based on the addresses? Or is it based on another method? I could not find it.

Try reading the OP:

The intent of this thread is to find out and update the statistic on how bitcoins as investment/holdings are distributed according to the size of actual holding (note that this differs from the largest addresses -list).


What the method is, is discussed in the thread. A nice post of mine, from the day when the figures were last updated, summarizes it.
legendary
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
This topic has just been referenced in an article by Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/03/02/you-dont-need-a-nobel-prize-to-be-wrong-about-bitcoin-but-it-helps/

good to see this work being used outside of the Bitcointalk community Smiley
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
hm
February 28, 2014, 08:36:52 AM
So is this list of distribution only based on the addresses? Or is it based on another method? I could not find it.

I would suggest two tendencies:
1. Addresses with large sums are likely to be cold storages of exchanges or storage services like blockchain.info
-> Per address there are many individual holders.
2. Individuals with largs amounts tend to have differend addresses.

Just one example:
Let's assume I have 8 coins and split them up on 4 different addresses. Then I bought for my family (4 individuals) 0.5btc each and to make it easier for them I add all of them to one address.
address1 2
address2 2
address3 2
address4 2
address5 2
-> On the blockchain this would appear as a perfect distribution.

Another example:
990 individuals store their 1 coin on blockchain.info and one person has 10 coins, and stores them in one address.
address1 990
address2 10
-> On the blockchain this would appear as vastly unequal, but in reality it is.



This leads to the conclusion that the wealth distribution ist not really easy.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
February 28, 2014, 04:53:02 AM
Since the metrics are quite soft methods, lots of 'educated guesswork' will be involved in interpreting the fall of gox to the accounts. Besides, 1/3 most plausible scenarios still includes the goxcoins that are just seized by USGov. Another scenario is that the keys are temporarily lost but may be partially recovered. Only the 2011 thief/hack/ponzi scenario means that the coins were dispersed then, and double-accounted ever since.

Since we are talking "only" about 6% of the coins existing now, the impact is less drastic than you would think. Every month, the # of people in the categories changes by 10% to 100%.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
World Class Cryptonaire
February 28, 2014, 04:43:02 AM
Is the distribution of gox accounts somehow different than the general distribution? Ideas?

My personal opinion is that the distribution of gox accounts would differ from the general distribution of bitcoins. A few reasons why I believe so:

1) US deposits/withdrawls were very difficult once they were restricted meaning that you take most of the US distribution of btc out of the picture
2) Mt Gox has been around for a very long time, meaning that early investors in bitcoin may have had very large bitcoin sums within their mt gox account
    --comparing that to lets say coinbase, which didn't come around until individual bitcoins were much more expensive and thus I'd bet that the total number of bitcoins held at CB or bought from CB and held in a personal wallet is less than those at mt gox
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
World Class Cryptonaire
February 28, 2014, 04:36:38 AM
From the OP:

The intent of this thread is to find out and update the statistic on how bitcoins as investment/holdings are distributed according to the size of actual holding (note that this differs from the largest addresses -list).

You are all the time free to review the largest addresses. This thread is calculated using other metrics.

When I said wallets I meant the largest owners of bitcoin, not necessarily the largest bitcoin addresses. Do you plan on running your metrics again soon? I would really like to know how the distribution of bitcoins has now changed after this mt gox event (due to people leaving/entering bitcoin). I would really like to be able to understand about how/if the distribution of bitcoin wealth changed after the whole mt gox event.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
February 27, 2014, 05:26:06 PM
Is the distribution of gox accounts somehow different than the general distribution? Ideas?
hero member
Activity: 544
Merit: 500
February 27, 2014, 05:04:45 PM
February update

This would be a great idea now we know the extent of the Gox 744,400XBT (or more) I see the most likely scenario is extreme incompetence and that the keys are lost. It might be possible to do some detective work on accounts of a certain age and say similar numbers such as 10,000 btc if these coins turn out the be lost then that considerably changes your wealth distribution table.

edit: alot of good analysis going on in this thread   http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1z37zw/mt_gox_has_at_least_200k_btc/

donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
February 27, 2014, 12:23:47 PM
How about you cease from now on posting these things to this thread. You have threads of your own to do it, and the interested ones (have to) be intelligent enough to find them, thank you for understanding! Smiley
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 27, 2014, 11:26:46 AM
Serious problem for Bitcoin now:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5407521


More:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5408045

I hope readers can start to comprehend why coin taint is the most serious Achilles heel of Bitcoin.

On Friday, 2 BTC were stolen from me. I am considering reporting this to law enforcement. This means that anyone who receives BTC which derives from my stolen 2 BTC will be liable to return them back to me.

Perhaps the thief pushed them through a mixer such as Bigcoinfog.com

Thus that mixer will be liable to provide records. If it can't, then it will be liable for the 2 BTC.

So you can't you see you are playing with fire by mixing your coins through a centralized mixer.

And can't you see that without widespread anonymity (and decentralized mixers!), then crypto-currency is absolutely useless except to a government which wants a ledger from hell to track everything.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 27, 2014, 06:08:48 AM
I hope this post finally makes it go "Bingo!" in your minds.


The real reason I don't worry too much about Bitcoin the brand, is because the tech is there. Decentralize all the things. Trustless money, trustless contracts, trustless, decentralized, disintermediated *everything*.

Unfortunately Bitcoin doesn't do any of those things.

Mining and exchanges are already highly centralized.

We can see with the Mt.Gox outcome that the coin supply is shrinking and centralized into ownership by probably some head of the same "DEEP STATE" monster that controls the NSA (very reputable Bill Moyers interview at the linked post).

Bitcoin can't even handle real-time transactions so then we need VISA (Mastercoin) again and we are right back to centralization.

And trustless contracts are opcodes that the centralized developers have to enable one-by-one and most haven't been turned on.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5401309

Hey all,

Posted just a few hours ago at The Hub. Jaws dropped when we received this for publication.

Article here: http://hub.playerauctions.com/bitcoin-mtgox-ryanstraus/

Content:
The Mt. Gox situation is troublesome for the bitcoin industry as it exists today. However, the situation presents a bigger problem for the bitcoin industry than it does for bitcoin itself.  After all, this story is not about the squandering of trust by one party or the need to restore the community’s trust in other parties.  Rather, this story is about the continued bastardization of Bitcoin through the injection of the question of trust into a protocol that was designed to function without it.

...


If Bitcoin becomes NWOCoin (or whatever) we will still create our own future with other options. Oppression won't work. By 2030 or whenever, if a 1WG is being made, and it seems to be an oppressive one, people will leave this rock behind, too.

We can't just expect those options to happen. We must actually make them happen.

50% of the population is not ready for the disruption of decentralization, as they will be unemployed (as predicted by Oxford that 47% will be replaced by computer automation). Thus a majority of the society will fighting for centralization and "we are the 99%, take it from the 1%" with Obama, Merkel, Hollande, etc leading the charge! Remember Obama said, "you didn't earn that without the government and society".


Your IQ is too high to understand these things of simple life, you are 100% focused in your abstract concepts.

Somewhat true at times, but actually I lived in the Philippines during the Asian Crisis and saw what really happens during economic implosions. Even my eye was gouged out by one of those pissed off jobless. I saw kidnapping every where, even I had to be careful when driving my car outside the city boundary.


The fascists and the immoral will always lag behind. While the real world isn't a Disney film, and there are no good guys or bad guys, just people that are mixtures of both to varying degrees... the world *is* like a Disney film in that, in the end, the good(er) guys win. There's nothing man can do that either surprises me, or makes me afraid. As I watch the slow triumph of good actors, though, I do occasionally get twinges of excitement.

During debt collapse, they can do a lot of damage before they are wiped out. You have grown up in period of no chaos and world war, because we were borrowing $150 trillion to keep everyone appeased.

Now you will learn about reality. The history you refuse to believe existed or you don't think can ever happen again. You will learn the hard way I guess.

My own mother, a devout Baptist, had the initial concern that Bitcoin will be part of the end-of-the-world regime prophesied in Revelations. I don't believe in that kind of thing, but my answer is the same regardless. If somehow, in a way I cannot immediately foresee, Bitcoin is appropriated by bad actors and becomes the thing she fears, it won't be by us; free men will trade whatever they please. We'll use another cryptocurrency, or several; a zerocoin or an anoncoin or whatever we need to be free. For now, Bitcoin looks like a good option. That can change, and so can the users. In the meantime, even assuming that outcome, a controlled Bitcoin is probably still freer and fairer and more transparent to all participants, than the existing system. So it's progress either way.

My mother now saves using Bitcoin, btw.

We have to actually make the better Bitcoin. It won't just come by being closed-minded to the reality at-hand.


There is no way BTC goes to $1 million such that the holders of 100+ BTC go to $100 millionaires and maintain control over their wealth.

Society controls large wealth. This is why large wealth colludes to control government. Thus if that $1 million/BTC comes true, you BTC100 holders either become corrupt (join in the capture of the government) or you give up control of your wealth to the socialism.

Thus the goal of a more anonymous altcoin (since Bitcoin isn't anonymous at all) is not to make large holders anonymous, rather to make the small and medium holders anonymous. And thus large holders also can keep a small portion anonymous. This is their diversification, get of tax hell plan.

Had the same mistaken belief a while ago.  Then saw how quickly most large holders were spending coins when price broke $1000 on all kinds of stuff.  Manors, Gold, Lambos.  If you own 100 XBT and the price becomes 100,000 per XBT you will not be holding it all in the hopes of $1million.  You will sell.

My point is that the society will be dysfunctional due to debt collapse contagion with 50% technological unemployment. Thus being wealthy will mean the larger wealthy eat the smaller wealthy by employing the "99% versus 1%" political uprising.

Let's say I am wrong. Have you hedged just in case I am correct? Gold buried in the ground to collapse the velocity of money to help intensify a Dark Age?

How about an anonymous altcoin with superior features for decentralized everything in order to increase the velocity of money inspite of he dysfunctional social collapse?
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
February 27, 2014, 03:21:08 AM
From the OP:

The intent of this thread is to find out and update the statistic on how bitcoins as investment/holdings are distributed according to the size of actual holding (note that this differs from the largest addresses -list).

You are all the time free to review the largest addresses. This thread is calculated using other metrics.
legendary
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1534
www.ixcoin.net
February 27, 2014, 01:33:04 AM
I'd like to see a February update on the distribution of bitcoins, especially after mt gox "losing" 750k. I'd specifically be interested to see if there are now fewer large wallets due to the initial panic selling etc

I think you'll see less larger wallets as the old school whales got taken out of the game.

And if I'm right and this was a bank/govt operation then they won't let all those coins sit in a few big wallets, that would be too obvious.

They would instead distribute all those coins over several hundred or even thousand wallets.  So I think you'll see fewer large wallets and quite a few more smaller wallets with hundreds to several thousand coins each.

The good news is that now since the smart money is in the game, we will get major media spin and massive pumps (and subsequent dumps) as they jockey for bigger and bigger positions.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
World Class Cryptonaire
February 27, 2014, 01:12:29 AM
I'd like to see a February update on the distribution of bitcoins, especially after mt gox "losing" 750k. I'd specifically be interested to see if there are now fewer large wallets due to the initial panic selling etc
legendary
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
February 26, 2014, 11:43:33 PM
There is no way BTC goes to $1 million such that the holders of 100+ BTC go to $100 millionaires and maintain control over their wealth.

Society controls large wealth. This is why large wealth colludes to control government. Thus if that $1 million/BTC comes true, you BTC100 holders either become corrupt (join in the capture of the government) or you give up control of your wealth to the socialism.

Thus the goal of a more anonymous altcoin (since Bitcoin isn't anonymous at all) is not to make large holders anonymous, rather to make the small and medium holders anonymous. And thus large holders also can keep a small portion anonymous. This is their diversification, get of tax hell plan.
Had the same mistaken belief a while ago.  Then saw how quickly most large holders were spending coins when price broke $1000 on all kinds of stuff.  Manors, Gold, Lambos.  If you own 100 XBT and the price becomes 100,000 per XBT you will not be holding it all in the hopes of $1million.  You will sell.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
February 26, 2014, 10:18:03 PM
The real reason I don't worry too much about Bitcoin the brand, is because the tech is there. Decentralize all the things. Trustless money, trustless contracts, trustless, decentralized, disintermediated *everything*. If Bitcoin becomes NWOCoin (or whatever) we will still create our own future with other options. Oppression won't work. By 2030 or whenever, if a 1WG is being made, and it seems to be an oppressive one, people will leave this rock behind, too. The fascists and the immoral will always lag behind. While the real world isn't a Disney film, and there are no good guys or bad guys, just people that are mixtures of both to varying degrees... the world *is* like a Disney film in that, in the end, the good(er) guys win. There's nothing man can do that either surprises me, or makes me afraid. As I watch the slow triumph of good actors, though, I do occasionally get twinges of excitement.

My own mother, a devout Baptist, had the initial concern that Bitcoin will be part of the end-of-the-world regime prophesied in Revelations. I don't believe in that kind of thing, but my answer is the same regardless. If somehow, in a way I cannot immediately foresee, Bitcoin is appropriated by bad actors and becomes the thing she fears, it won't be by us; free men will trade whatever they please. We'll use another cryptocurrency, or several; a zerocoin or an anoncoin or whatever we need to be free. For now, Bitcoin looks like a good option. That can change, and so can the users. In the meantime, even assuming that outcome, a controlled Bitcoin is probably still freer and fairer and more transparent to all participants, than the existing system. So it's progress either way.

My mother now saves using Bitcoin, btw.

I do believe Revelations and Bitcoin could very well be related, but indirectly.  Because Bitcoin has no centralized authority governments will have little control over the use of Bitcoin and may need to make drastic measures, such as put a barcode or QR code on our hands or foreheads to buy or sell so that they can keep track of who is buying and selling, but Bitcoin itself is not the problem.  It is always the GOVERNMENT!  Wink
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
I am Citizenfive.
February 26, 2014, 05:47:40 PM
The real reason I don't worry too much about Bitcoin the brand, is because the tech is there. Decentralize all the things. Trustless money, trustless contracts, trustless, decentralized, disintermediated *everything*. If Bitcoin becomes NWOCoin (or whatever) we will still create our own future with other options. Oppression won't work. By 2030 or whenever, if a 1WG is being made, and it seems to be an oppressive one, people will leave this rock behind, too. The fascists and the immoral will always lag behind. While the real world isn't a Disney film, and there are no good guys or bad guys, just people that are mixtures of both to varying degrees... the world *is* like a Disney film in that, in the end, the good(er) guys win. There's nothing man can do that either surprises me, or makes me afraid. As I watch the slow triumph of good actors, though, I do occasionally get twinges of excitement.

My own mother, a devout Baptist, had the initial concern that Bitcoin will be part of the end-of-the-world regime prophesied in Revelations. I don't believe in that kind of thing, but my answer is the same regardless. If somehow, in a way I cannot immediately foresee, Bitcoin is appropriated by bad actors and becomes the thing she fears, it won't be by us; free men will trade whatever they please. We'll use another cryptocurrency, or several; a zerocoin or an anoncoin or whatever we need to be free. For now, Bitcoin looks like a good option. That can change, and so can the users. In the meantime, even assuming that outcome, a controlled Bitcoin is probably still freer and fairer and more transparent to all participants, than the existing system. So it's progress either way.

My mother now saves using Bitcoin, btw.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 26, 2014, 12:57:48 PM
There is no way BTC goes to $1 million such that the holders of 100+ BTC go to $100 millionaires and maintain control over their wealth.

Society controls large wealth. This is why large wealth colludes to control government. Thus if that $1 million/BTC comes true, you BTC100 holders either become corrupt (join in the capture of the government) or you give up control of your wealth to the socialism.

Thus the goal of a more anonymous altcoin (since Bitcoin isn't anonymous at all) is not to make large holders anonymous, rather to make the small and medium holders anonymous. And thus large holders also can keep a small portion anonymous. This is their diversification, get of tax hell plan.
Pages:
Jump to: