Title: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: miztaziggy on September 02, 2014, 03:26:51 PM Does anyone know if there's a way to measure how Bitcoin is spread out currently?
I mean this in terms of numbers of users with coins. This doesn't mean to show how Bitcoins are spread among various public addresses, but how they're spread among unique users. If it could be measured, it would be a useful index of how Bitcoin is spreading and becoming 'mainstream' or not. Eg. When bitcoin was first created, it would have looked like this: http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m296/cjw32/BTCinitial_zps0ea25cae.png Currently, maybe it looks like this: http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m296/cjw32/BTCcurrent_zps79404a36.png When it's truly become what everyone thinks it could be it may well look like this: http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m296/cjw32/BTCfuture_zpsfac5a5a7.png Perhaps it may look more like the wealth distribution graph: http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m296/cjw32/adjusted-income-2013_zpsc5188f2c.jpg Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: LiteCoinGuy on September 02, 2014, 04:05:29 PM personally i think 10 - 100k in some years could be possible.
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Skrillex on September 02, 2014, 05:15:39 PM 10K is not obvious, it's OBLIGATORY, it only depends on the adoption level, BTC price is math: more adoption, higher price.
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Elwar on September 02, 2014, 05:19:07 PM There have been charts including this one by MIT:
http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: blatchcorn on September 02, 2014, 05:22:23 PM Do you what data MIT included and excluded in this study?
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: MrBtcSenior on September 02, 2014, 05:58:02 PM I thought that the unspent bitcoins would have been higher in the last years but I was wrong of course.
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: truehold3r on September 02, 2014, 06:02:53 PM In 2009 you couldn't buy almost anything with bitcoin so they remained unspent.
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Elwar on September 02, 2014, 06:47:27 PM Do you what data MIT included and excluded in this study? Here is the coindesk article on the study: http://www.coindesk.com/mit-report-bitcoin-more-likely-spent-hoarded/ Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: dankkk on September 03, 2014, 02:51:31 AM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Winner on September 03, 2014, 03:14:36 AM There have been charts including this one by MIT: http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg I wonder how much people are holding in 2014... In 2013 it looks like it increased the amount of users with unspent bitcoins Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Snorek on September 03, 2014, 03:17:26 AM It is simple, bitcoin is getting more popular. And we get more way to spentit so people are just using it just like normal currencies in real world. Nothing special about it, just simple evolution.
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Victoo on September 03, 2014, 03:23:33 AM BTC ATMs are getting opened at many places so there is a big chance of a fast users growth soon.
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: johncarpe64 on September 04, 2014, 05:18:24 AM Do you what data MIT included and excluded in this study? Here is the coindesk article on the study: http://www.coindesk.com/mit-report-bitcoin-more-likely-spent-hoarded/ It would be much more accurate if the study were to attempt to follow the outputs and look at the number of TXs that inputs are associated with. This would likely be a much better representation if the mined coins are actually sold or not. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: asdlolciterquit on September 04, 2014, 01:19:46 PM this thread make me ask a technical question:
is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? ??? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: lihuajkl on September 04, 2014, 02:12:35 PM this thread make me ask a technical question: Not been found yet. But it is nearly impossible.is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? ??? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: QuestionAuthority on September 04, 2014, 02:23:13 PM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: DannyHamilton on September 04, 2014, 02:26:04 PM this thread make me ask a technical question: is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? ??? It's not possible to know for certain, but it is possible to make an educated guess that there is a strong likelihood of two addresses being under the control of the same person (or company). In order to spend bitcoins that have been received at an address, those bitcoins must be used as an input into a transaction. Then the transaction must be signed using the private key that is associated with the address. If bitcoins from two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction, then there is a very high likelihood that the same person owns both addresses since the transaction needs signatures from the private keys of both addresses. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: asdlolciterquit on September 04, 2014, 04:22:44 PM this thread make me ask a technical question: is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? ??? It's not possible to know for certain, but it is possible to make an educated guess that there is a strong likelihood of two addresses being under the control of the same person (or company). In order to spend bitcoins that have been received at an address, those bitcoins must be used as an input into a transaction. Then the transaction must be signed using the private key that is associated with the address. If bitcoins from two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction, then there is a very high likelihood that the same person owns both addresses since the transaction needs signatures from the private keys of both addresses. thanks for this reply, it's very usefull. Just one think, that maybe is very simple but i don't understand: in which case "two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction"? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: 2double0 on September 04, 2014, 04:27:39 PM personally i think 10 - 100k in some years could be possible. Maybe like 20 years id say :o Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: DannyHamilton on September 04, 2014, 04:50:08 PM Just one think, that maybe is very simple but i don't understand: in which case "two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction"? Here is an example: https://blockchain.info/tx/0dc6416fc7c2db6167212bc50a6d3d940c3d40d1e3a4067b9194ae45256c6cae In that transaction we see that the spender spent 0.0020125 BTC that were previously received at 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 0.00022488 BTC that were previously received at 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ. Since, in order to be valid, this transaction must have signatures from the private keys that are associated with BOTH of those addresses, we can say that it is very likely that both 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ are under the control of the same person (or company). Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: dompsairs on September 04, 2014, 05:25:50 PM BTC ATMs are getting opened at many places so there is a big chance of a fast users growth soon. Look at this shit:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnm4xFC2xNo not if they are as shitty as this, we need non ID and non scanning fingertip shit otherwise no one will give a flying motherfuck. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: arcanum on September 04, 2014, 11:12:06 PM We need to teach people about btc, most people i talk to dont know about it yet.
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: master-P on September 05, 2014, 01:50:54 AM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Ron~Popeil on September 05, 2014, 04:00:49 AM Just one think, that maybe is very simple but i don't understand: in which case "two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction"? Here is an example: https://blockchain.info/tx/0dc6416fc7c2db6167212bc50a6d3d940c3d40d1e3a4067b9194ae45256c6cae In that transaction we see that the spender spent 0.0020125 BTC that were previously received at 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 0.00022488 BTC that were previously received at 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ. Since, in order to be valid, this transaction must have signatures from the private keys that are associated with BOTH of those addresses, we can say that it is very likely that both 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ are under the control of the same person (or company). Purely out of curiosity is there a reason someone would want to or need to do it that way? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: QuestionAuthority on September 05, 2014, 04:46:41 AM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. That would still give you a massively incomplete picture. At one point I was mining at three pools at once. I learned not put all my eggs in one basket the first time Deepbit was DDoS'd. I was mining at Graet's pool, Tycho's pool and Slushes pool at the same time. I moved the coin to three different addresses every day to keep track of my earnings. Once a week I moved all of it to one of four cold storage addresses which I kept evenly balanced. I also kept some coin for almost two years at three different exchanges moving it in and out. I was mining Namecoin and LTC for a while on the free CPUs and selling the Namecoin for BTC at CryptoXchange and the LTC at BTCe for BTC and moving that coin to a separate address to keep track of that amount. I was trading heavily at BTCe and moving coins in and out of BTCe almost daily. I've moved coin in and out of Tradehill multiple times in a short period of time. I also had investments that paid dividends and moved that coin around. In one month I moved 1800 BTC between four addresses to set up permanent cold storage for them. I kept a separate address that I used for SpendBitcoin Amazon cards to replace failed hardware. I never mixed coins so I won't even get into that. Are you starting to get the idea that tracking addresses doesn't show expenditures? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: wasserman99 on September 05, 2014, 05:11:00 AM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. That would still give you a massively incomplete picture. At one point I was mining at three pools at once. I learned not put all my eggs in one basket the first time Deepbit was DDoS'd. I was mining at Graet's pool, Tycho's pool and Slushes pool at the same time. I moved the coin to three different addresses every day to keep track of my earnings. Once a week I moved all of it to one of four cold storage addresses which I kept evenly balanced. I also kept some coin for almost two years at three different exchanges moving it in and out. I was mining LTC and Namecoin for a while on the free CPUs and selling the Namecoin for BTC at CryptoXchange and the LTC at BTCe for BTC and moving that coin to a separate address to keep track of that amount. I was trading heavily at BTCe and moving coins in and out of BTCe almost daily. I've moved coin in and out of Tradehill multiple times in a short period of time. I also had investments that paid dividends and moved that coin around. In one month I moved 1800 BTC between four addresses to set up permanent cold storage for them. I kept a separate address that I used for SpendBitcoin Amazon cards to replace failed hardware. I never mixed coins so I won't even get into that. Are you starting to get the idea that tracking addresses doesn't show expenditures? I would argue that tracking addresses does not show economic expenditures. As you stated above it is possible to move your own coins around and it would be difficult to know if you are sending the bitcoin to yourself or if you are spending it (as in giving someone bitcoin and receiving either fiat or goods/services in return). Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: master-P on September 05, 2014, 05:22:07 AM Just one think, that maybe is very simple but i don't understand: in which case "two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction"? Here is an example: https://blockchain.info/tx/0dc6416fc7c2db6167212bc50a6d3d940c3d40d1e3a4067b9194ae45256c6cae In that transaction we see that the spender spent 0.0020125 BTC that were previously received at 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 0.00022488 BTC that were previously received at 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ. Since, in order to be valid, this transaction must have signatures from the private keys that are associated with BOTH of those addresses, we can say that it is very likely that both 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ are under the control of the same person (or company). Purely out of curiosity is there a reason someone would want to or need to do it that way? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: QuestionAuthority on September 05, 2014, 05:31:39 AM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. That would still give you a massively incomplete picture. At one point I was mining at three pools at once. I learned not put all my eggs in one basket the first time Deepbit was DDoS'd. I was mining at Graet's pool, Tycho's pool and Slushes pool at the same time. I moved the coin to three different addresses every day to keep track of my earnings. Once a week I moved all of it to one of four cold storage addresses which I kept evenly balanced. I also kept some coin for almost two years at three different exchanges moving it in and out. I was mining LTC and Namecoin for a while on the free CPUs and selling the Namecoin for BTC at CryptoXchange and the LTC at BTCe for BTC and moving that coin to a separate address to keep track of that amount. I was trading heavily at BTCe and moving coins in and out of BTCe almost daily. I've moved coin in and out of Tradehill multiple times in a short period of time. I also had investments that paid dividends and moved that coin around. In one month I moved 1800 BTC between four addresses to set up permanent cold storage for them. I kept a separate address that I used for SpendBitcoin Amazon cards to replace failed hardware. I never mixed coins so I won't even get into that. Are you starting to get the idea that tracking addresses doesn't show expenditures? I would argue that tracking addresses does not show economic expenditures. As you stated above it is possible to move your own coins around and it would be difficult to know if you are sending the bitcoin to yourself or if you are spending it (as in giving someone bitcoin and receiving either fiat or goods/services in return). You may be able to devise some kind of way to monitor the economy but tracking addresses would be the absolute worst way. I can see tracking business sales directly as the best way, if you can get the data. I didn't even mention the times I sold a few coins locally through in person exchange. That's not a transfer for goods or services any more than all of the day traders and hobby speculators are. I'd be willing to bet that a good chunk of the $1.6 million Overstock reported in Bitcoin sales were miners replacing failed equipment or buying new cabling and equipment to make more coin just like I used to do at Amazon. Which is just a return to more mining not the support for a thriving economy. But how do you really tell? I can't think of a way. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: Ron~Popeil on September 05, 2014, 01:48:31 PM Just one think, that maybe is very simple but i don't understand: in which case "two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction"? Here is an example: https://blockchain.info/tx/0dc6416fc7c2db6167212bc50a6d3d940c3d40d1e3a4067b9194ae45256c6cae In that transaction we see that the spender spent 0.0020125 BTC that were previously received at 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 0.00022488 BTC that were previously received at 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ. Since, in order to be valid, this transaction must have signatures from the private keys that are associated with BOTH of those addresses, we can say that it is very likely that both 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ are under the control of the same person (or company). Purely out of curiosity is there a reason someone would want to or need to do it that way? I see. So it is like paying for something at the store with checks from two accounts. Thanks! Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: asdlolciterquit on September 05, 2014, 02:37:59 PM :)
Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: findftp on September 05, 2014, 03:03:39 PM We need to teach people about btc, most people i talk to dont know about it yet. Don't push it, only teach when they ask. Bitcoin should spread like a natural virus, not like synthetic cancer. If it spread naturally, it will succeed. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: asdlolciterquit on September 06, 2014, 10:12:19 AM We need to teach people about btc, most people i talk to dont know about it yet. Don't push it, only teach when they ask. Bitcoin should spread like a natural virus, not like synthetic cancer. If it spread naturally, it will succeed. i agree that we don't must force people to use btc, but teach about it for me it's not a bad idea. How can they ask if they even don't know that btc exists? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: findftp on September 06, 2014, 07:31:19 PM We need to teach people about btc, most people i talk to dont know about it yet. Don't push it, only teach when they ask. Bitcoin should spread like a natural virus, not like synthetic cancer. If it spread naturally, it will succeed. i agree that we don't must force people to use btc, but teach about it for me it's not a bad idea. How can they ask if they even don't know that btc exists? Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: MajidBC on September 07, 2014, 06:54:13 PM 10K is not obvious, it's OBLIGATORY, it only depends on the adoption level, BTC price is math: more adoption, higher price. I have doubt about this part: more adoption, higher price. In some days, we see a big web site declares that it will accept bitcoin, but the price goes down without any significant bad news at the same time. Maybe the reason is that the web site dumps received bitcoins as soon as possible to lower its risk. I think the most important factor of the price is market manipulation at the moment. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: MajidBC on September 07, 2014, 06:56:49 PM We need to teach people about btc, most people i talk to dont know about it yet. I definitely agree with your opinion. A lot of people don't know anything at all about bitcoin. Maybe some promotions in TV shows would help. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: dankkk on September 07, 2014, 09:25:58 PM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. What I would argue this graph/study does prove is the fact that solo mining is more or less dead and does not happen anymore. Even miners with the fastest (in terms of hashrate) equipment are going to have to use pools in order to minimize variance in their earnings. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: QuestionAuthority on September 07, 2014, 11:55:01 PM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. What I would argue this graph/study does prove is the fact that solo mining is more or less dead and does not happen anymore. Even miners with the fastest (in terms of hashrate) equipment are going to have to use pools in order to minimize variance in their earnings. That's a fair assessment. I guess there was some useful data gathered. Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: hikedoon on September 08, 2014, 03:44:10 AM I moved 1 BTC from my online wallet to a paper wallet to hold long term but that graph would have added me to the spent immediately section.
:o Title: Re: Bitcoin's usage spread Post by: leannemckim46 on September 08, 2014, 05:43:24 AM There have been charts including this one by MIT: I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs. http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MIT-Tech-Review-Spending-Bitcoins.jpg Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address. Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor. That would still give you a massively incomplete picture. At one point I was mining at three pools at once. I learned not put all my eggs in one basket the first time Deepbit was DDoS'd. I was mining at Graet's pool, Tycho's pool and Slushes pool at the same time. I moved the coin to three different addresses every day to keep track of my earnings. Once a week I moved all of it to one of four cold storage addresses which I kept evenly balanced. I also kept some coin for almost two years at three different exchanges moving it in and out. I was mining LTC and Namecoin for a while on the free CPUs and selling the Namecoin for BTC at CryptoXchange and the LTC at BTCe for BTC and moving that coin to a separate address to keep track of that amount. I was trading heavily at BTCe and moving coins in and out of BTCe almost daily. I've moved coin in and out of Tradehill multiple times in a short period of time. I also had investments that paid dividends and moved that coin around. In one month I moved 1800 BTC between four addresses to set up permanent cold storage for them. I kept a separate address that I used for SpendBitcoin Amazon cards to replace failed hardware. I never mixed coins so I won't even get into that. Are you starting to get the idea that tracking addresses doesn't show expenditures? I would argue that tracking addresses does not show economic expenditures. As you stated above it is possible to move your own coins around and it would be difficult to know if you are sending the bitcoin to yourself or if you are spending it (as in giving someone bitcoin and receiving either fiat or goods/services in return). You may be able to devise some kind of way to monitor the economy but tracking addresses would be the absolute worst way. I can see tracking business sales directly as the best way, if you can get the data. I didn't even mention the times I sold a few coins locally through in person exchange. That's not a transfer for goods or services any more than all of the day traders and hobby speculators are. I'd be willing to bet that a good chunk of the $1.6 million Overstock reported in Bitcoin sales were miners replacing failed equipment or buying new cabling and equipment to make more coin just like I used to do at Amazon. Which is just a return to more mining not the support for a thriving economy. But how do you really tell? I can't think of a way. |