Topic: Distribution of bitcoin wealth by owner - page 26. (Read 153446 times)
This is my favorite thread, I am really looking forward to the updated numbers. Seeing where I rank on the list puts things in perspective.
fyi, based on rpietila's excellent analysis, I made a derivative post here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-perspective-on-just-how-rare-it-is-to-own-01-btc-345228
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-perspective-on-just-how-rare-it-is-to-own-01-btc-345228
nice post, btw long time no see
+1
so this would make the one single entity holding 1-2 million BTC what?
Satoshi has (at least) BTC980k
- My gut feeling is that number of bitcoin holders was estimated a little too small last time - an analysis of Bitcoin client and wallet software userbases, (Rassah! ) plus Coinbase users, Bittiraha.fi users and Localbitcoins activity, and new user count in exchanges, is what we need to find more reliable figures.
) plus Coinbase users, Bittiraha.fi users and Localbitcoins activity, and new user count in exchanges, is what we need to find more reliable figures.In Japan, 週刊新潮 (Shukan Shincho, a weekly news magazine/tabloid) published a section on Bitcoin this week featuring an interview with a MtGox rep. The rep said that they have 720,000 users, of which 400,000 are active/frequent, and that 20% of their users are Chinese, up from 4% in April.
OK. I think for Mt.Gox, the "active" number 400,000 is what we should use. The total number possibly includes also accounts that have not been funded + the ones that have been emptied (and abandoned). The ratio of "active":"total" is about the same as in Silvervault.
Then we know that Localbitcoins has 120,000 accounts, with a growth rate of 2.5% per day. If you just buy from any of the merchants, you do not need to register afaik, so the total number of users could be larger. On the other hand, LB has quite many accounts with zero trades, since it has grown so rapidly. Perhaps 80,000 users would be a good estimate.
Coinbase has 488,000 customer wallets. The number is probably "total", in which case about 300,000 would have a balance.
BTC China has to have quite many accounts, but I did not find the information publicly. Help!
Bitstamp ditto!
Number of Bitcoin clients downloaded is 4,350,000 over 5 years. How many of these is in use?
MyWallets (blockchain.info wallet) walletcount is 690,000.
Bitcoin network has used 11,462,000 addresses, of which 600,000 (exact) have non-dust (>1mBTC) balance.
Then there are other exchanges and wallet services, which you can add if you find nice figures.
In my understanding, the Bitcoin ledger (address usage and balance distribution), currently sets the upper limit for bitcoin number of users. Especially considering that 1mBTC only 2 months ago was only $0.13 or so, most of these accounts are not the sole acconts of bitcoin holders. On the other hand, most of the larger accounts
We need to evaluate, how many users should be added who only use exchanges for storing their bitcoins. This increases the total number.
On the other hand, there is a huge overlap in the numbers, since I alone have 8 accounts in the abovementioned sites only + several addresses with balance in the ledger.
Now, please try to keep this on-topic so that we get the december figures out.
So, in effect, you are advocating everyone to sell everything they own above 50,000 mBTC 
Yes, most can do with 500mBTC very well
No srsly, I added the very highest levels below, so that you can see that they are available. In the former world order (including your article), there is no "100+ billion USD" level, as you can see: it unmathematically mysteriously disappears from all lists and charts. This shows that the level should host about 30 people.* top 30 would have BTC5,000 or more (100 billion USD)
* top 300 would have BTC500 or more (10 billion USD)
* top 3,000 would have BTC50 or more (1 billion USD)
* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
Notable is the size of BTC as the "basic" unit. It is a large unit, only applicable in displaying the total wealth of people who used to be called billionaires.
Here's the problem.
Anyone currently holding more than 5 BTC or so will decide to sell the excess when the proceeds (in dollars) from those excess coins will bring them financial security, since they can simply hold the remainder for the event in which BTC goes on to completely displace fiat.
This means we will see early adopters cashing out to the tune of trillions before any serious change-over will occur, and that means people must be convinced to put trillions of dollars into Bitcoin to actually propel it to worldwide adoption.
The people who will cash out first are those with thousands of BTC, since they can already buy total financial security in fiat and still have plenty of coins left over. Then those with hundreds... then you, the reader, who probably has less than 100.
Do you think the market can pay those trillions of dollars to the individuals with more coins with you? I think we're sitting on a time bomb here. The marginal utility of that first million is too great. 100k people times 1 million dollars equals oh fuck.
So, in effect, you are advocating everyone to sell everything they own above 50,000 mBTC
Yes, most can do with 500mBTC very well
No srsly, I added the very highest levels below, so that you can see that they are available. In the former world order (including your article), there is no "100+ billion USD" level, as you can see: it unmathematically mysteriously disappears from all lists and charts. This shows that the level should host about 30 people.* top 30 would have BTC5,000 or more (100 billion USD)
* top 300 would have BTC500 or more (10 billion USD)
* top 3,000 would have BTC50 or more (1 billion USD)
* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
Notable is the size of BTC as the "basic" unit. It is a large unit, only applicable in displaying the total wealth of people who used to be called billionaires.
I has been said before I'm sure, but let me say it again then: this disproportionate distribution could in itself cause problems if got out to wouldbe investors, not even talking of the very real danger of manipulation.
Not saying they don't deserve having that much, but they sure need to be responsible for all of us to keep it running by not dumping too much at one time.
Not saying they don't deserve having that much, but they sure need to be responsible for all of us to keep it running by not dumping too much at one time.
Adverse - preventing success or development; harmful; unfavorable.
Risk adverse - preventing success of risk... Um...
Did AnonyMint mean risk averse?
As a large holder and/or someone who knows large holders very well, I can tell you that rpietila is correct. We don't like altcoins, and are boycotting them. I don't know other's reasons, but my personal one range from wanting to secure my position and seeing altcoins as a that, to being risk averse with my wealth, and believing altcoins are much much more risky than Bitcoin. I don't need to speculate on currency that may crash and disappear within a month, since I already have a money position, so I see people investing in altcoins as wishful "me too" types who think they missed out on being early adopters.
Mostly, I just haven't seen any benefits in any other altcoins. I own Namecoins, but only for the purposes of buying and managing domain names.
Risk adverse - preventing success of risk... Um...
Did AnonyMint mean risk averse?As a large holder and/or someone who knows large holders very well, I can tell you that rpietila is correct. We don't like altcoins, and are boycotting them. I don't know other's reasons, but my personal one range from wanting to secure my position and seeing altcoins as a that, to being risk averse with my wealth, and believing altcoins are much much more risky than Bitcoin. I don't need to speculate on currency that may crash and disappear within a month, since I already have a money position, so I see people investing in altcoins as wishful "me too" types who think they missed out on being early adopters.
Mostly, I just haven't seen any benefits in any other altcoins. I own Namecoins, but only for the purposes of buying and managing domain names.
* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
To corner your share of the world's bitcoins, I suggest a simple top-down approach: Decide, Buy, Wait, Profit -model.
(A more complicated bottom-up approach is the topic of this thread.)
- Decide, which of the levels above suits your preferred lifestyle.
- Buy 10 times the number of bitcoins necessary (to allow for divestment, spend, gifts, loss, theft, tax etc.)
- Wait.
- Profit.
For example if you are currently "upper middle class", and want to gain a level, you need minimum 50mBTC. By buying half a bitcoin for about $500, you are neither in any danger of losing out on Bitcoin's appreciation, nor suffer disproportionately if Bitcoin fails.
So, in effect, you are advocating everyone to sell everything they own above 50,000 mBTC
* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
To corner your share of the world's bitcoins, I suggest a simple top-down approach: Decide, Buy, Wait, Profit -model.
(A more complicated bottom-up approach is the topic of this thread.)
- Decide, which of the levels above suits your preferred lifestyle.
- Buy 10 times the number of bitcoins necessary (to allow for divestment, spend, gifts, loss, theft, tax etc.)
- Wait.
- Profit.
For example if you are currently "upper middle class", and want to gain a level, you need minimum 50mBTC. By buying half a bitcoin for about $500, you are neither in any danger of losing out on Bitcoin's appreciation, nor suffer disproportionately if Bitcoin fails.
Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins. This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.
Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.
I, for one, am boycotting altcoins, despite the gains that might be achievable. Central banks and their cronies are boycotting all cryptos.
People in the position of power do not need to diversify for reasons of security or gain, they only diversify to retain their power.
...which may be Bitcoin's(crypto's) greatest strength that possibly the CB:s were in boycott mode for too long.
Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins. This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.
Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.
Large holders can't diversify. If they put a few % in an altcoin, they can't on a risk-weighted basis catch up to their 9x% even if it grows slower. If they diversify too much percent, they are not being risk-adverse.
Big capital is always blind to smaller opportunities (what I figuratively referred to as "dumb"), because it has to be. This is why won't see Richard Branson investing seriously in Bitcoin.
Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins. This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.
Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.
I, for one, am boycotting altcoins, despite the gains that might be achievable. Central banks and their cronies are boycotting all cryptos.
People in the position of power do not need to diversify for reasons of security or gain, they only diversify to retain their power.
...which may be Bitcoin's(crypto's) greatest strength that possibly the CB:s were in boycott mode for too long.
I, for one, see it as a market fork. Why join the smaller market if the underlying protocol is not practically different? It means altcoins are less useful. I think this tendency with networking effects and first mover advantage will win out in the long run.
Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins. This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.
Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.
I, for one, am boycotting altcoins, despite the gains that might be achievable. Central banks and their cronies are boycotting all cryptos.
People in the position of power do not need to diversify for reasons of security or gain, they only diversify to retain their power.
...which may be Bitcoin's(crypto's) greatest strength that possibly the CB:s were in boycott mode for too long.
Let us assume that Bitcoin has completely taken over as a currency, and is now used worldwide. Because the emergence of Bitcoin has made commerce boom, the world GDP has grown such that bitcoins alone account for as much value as the physical and financial world did in 2012.
The world uses other methods for everyday payments. Bitcoins themselves are used for large transactions only and a measured in units of mBTC. The wealth is distributed in a similar way as in the article, but to quite different people.
In this order,
* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
Even if you find it hard to believe the dollar part, the number of bitcoins existing is still constant, and will likely be distributed quite exactly according to the table above, when the initial distribution period is completed and bitcoins are used everywhere.
The world uses other methods for everyday payments. Bitcoins themselves are used for large transactions only and a measured in units of mBTC. The wealth is distributed in a similar way as in the article, but to quite different people.
In this order,
* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.
Even if you find it hard to believe the dollar part, the number of bitcoins existing is still constant, and will likely be distributed quite exactly according to the table above, when the initial distribution period is completed and bitcoins are used everywhere.
I have disagreed as to whether this distribution can be attained at the postulated high level of share of world wealth.
I don't know of anyone working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mind do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.
Few people are doing this yes. Most people are wrong. Claiming that most people don't do something is not an argument that it is wrong. Most people don't believe in Bitcoin for one
It is 100% certain these coins will be assigned to people and therefore they exist. It is really not more complicated than that.
By your logic, price would not be affected if 9 million BTC were mined overnight, because actually they already exist. It is in fact quite a lot more complicated than that. Price is a function of many variables, and knowing the eventual supply does of course affect the perceived value to some extent, but the available supply right now is not 21 Million BTC / 84 Million LTC etc. Market cap tells us about the total value of coins which are currently in circulation, and can be used to make some very basic comparisons.
I'm happy to admit that I haven't studied economics and don't know the best way to calculate these things. You're method seems strange though, to consider the existence of something in the present simply because it is known that it will exist in the future.
No it already exists but has not been distributed yet. Like a warehouse with all the pre-printed Dollar bills for eternity.
I don't know of anyone working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mind do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.
Few people are doing this yes. Most people are wrong. Claiming that most people don't do something is not an argument that it is wrong. Most people don't believe in Bitcoin for one
It is 100% certain these coins will be assigned to people and therefore they exist. It is really not more complicated than that.
I don't know of anyone working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mind do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.
Few people are doing this yes. Most people are wrong. Claiming that most people don't do something is not an argument that it is wrong. Most people don't believe in Bitcoin for one
It is 100% certain these coins will be assigned to people and therefore they exist. It is really not more complicated than that.
We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.
That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins. LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later. The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap. Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC. Actually LTC is at 8% of Bitcoin as there is a 4 time larger supply. I kinda think it's overpriced.
LTC market cap is $350 million, BTC is $10 billion. There are currently twice as many LTC as BTC, of course that ratio will change due to LTC having faster block rewards. If LTC were to capture 10% of BTC market share at this point, for a total cap of $1 billion, then price would be $40.
21 M : 84 M
1 : 4
It's not that important how many there are right now. Total supply is vastly more influential.
Total supply of LTC right now is 24 M. Another 60 M are yet to be mined. BTC total supply is 12 M right now, hence market cap of 10 Billion rather than 20 Billion.
That is your opinion. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree
That's not an opinion, those are facts. The part which is opinion is whether or not it is current supply or eventual supply that matters. I say current supply is what matters, because you can't buy coins which are yet to be mined, and applying my basic understanding of supply and demand to the equation leads me to believe that price depends on what is currently available on the market.
I realise that it is more complicated than this, and I am over simplifying. But it is also an over simplification to state that LTC has a future supply of 84 M while BTC has a future supply of 21 M, therefore LTC market cap is 4x higher.
No the fact is that the market cap of Bitcoin is 21M*975 = $20.475B. That coins have not been assigned to individuals yet don't mean they don't exist. I was trying to word this nicer to you before
I don't know of anyone else working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mined do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.
We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.
That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins. LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later. The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap. Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC. Actually if you read it, altcoins were included. An altcoin with 10-20% premine won't fly tho.
That ignored the network effect, which not only involved users and vendors, but also all the top developers and security experts. In other words, there is a higher risk of something going wrong with currencies other than bitcoin.
Jump to: