看了下，确实是中国比特币。

也看了他们的会员等级制度，没有什么其他问题。这个是有选择的，根据自己自身条件来选择服务。

炒币的大户，基本上在平台上都放有几十万~上百万的钱了。

33个vip的空位，已经很多了，一个交易平台如果有33个大户是很恐怖的，估计mtgox也没有这么多，所以3个大户都已经很不错了。所以这个没必要弄高。

交易平台推不同的营销策略，是交易平台的进步，个人还是很支持的。

我投资大额到交易平台，现在会问身边的大户朋友，还有自己去交易平台公司去看。

中国比特币，本人没去过该公司，只是查了下他们的注册资本和各个方面是否都做了，感觉还可以吧，也交易过10几次，感觉都ok。

反正：没有公布公司名字和公司地址的交易平台铁定不能去，其他的，看根据自己需要了。

请注意留存资金的说法，你可以随时取现和交易，傻子才会去挪用客户资金，其实网站这样设计的目地可能只是确认你的VIP门槛，
你看看国内现在除了比特币中国，还有哪个网站公布办公地址，注册信息，可信网站查询，


而且这只是针对大客户而言，其实大众版，专业版对普通玩家也够用了。

why would you want to deduct satoshis holdings? He's the top of the pyramid.

I deposited $12,500 on their site (by bank wire transfer) and they credited me with $11,985.  I e-mailed them prior to the deposit and they said fees are 1% so I expected to get $12,375, $390 more than what they gave me.  Since then its been some weak e-mails of them replying and them saying they are 'looking into it'.

There's no reason for the # to be anything but $12,375 since it was a USD wire sent to them.  I have another wire being sent to them in the meantime, I hope this one works out well.  Probably a bad move on my part, I should have waited to see if they were going to be legitimate and fix the former problem first.

If they resolve the issue favorably or unfavorably, I'll post any happenings here.

　　你们说的是中国BTC吧，VIP级别客户是可以直接签合同保障用户资金安全的，就我目测这家应该是国内为数不多的合法正规网站，用户体验做得不错，我试着有在上面交易。
有公司注册，有备案，公开办公地址。不过近期新开，推广方式和BIT100有点像，也是交易送股权（比特权），所有收入50%分红。
　　大家自己可以对比一下国内各个交易平台，至于楼主发这个贴的动机，我也觉得可疑，任何事情先了解清楚再下定论不迟。

knightmb once admitted to owning 371,000 BTC.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=564.0

However later he made up a long story about how people asked for money and that he ended up giving away everything and donating the rest to wikileaks.

TL;DR:  At present only 80,000 people in the world (1 in every 20,000 people with the capability to do so) have a bitcoin holding valued at least $1,000.

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).

The intent is not to try to identify individual holders or the size of their holdings.

Assumptions and conventions:
- Bitcoins are overwhelmingly controlled by individuals (ie. no significant corporate/public sector holdings exist); if bitcoins are held by an institution, they are credited to the beneficial owner(s)
- The brackets are logarithmic; the highest bracket is BTC10,000+, second highest is 1,000-10,000, etc.  

The consensus is as follows:

22. Oct 2013:

#People	#Bitcoins	#TotalBitcoins
100	BTC10k+	5.5M
900	BTC1k-10k	2.9M
5000	BTC100-1k	1.6M
31k	BTC10-100	1.0M
167k	BTC1-10	0.5M
1M	BTC0.1-1	0.3M
3M	BTC0-0.1	0.0M

Total: 11.8M bitcoins, 4.2M owners
80,000 people own bitcoins that are valued at more than $1,000 (BTC5 or more).

Thread is self-moderated to retain readability; user content will be amalgamated to the table and possibly deleted. If this happens, don't take it personally.

30w不多,但应该有啥抵押。否则如何保证你资金安全

The chinese go to bed in 2 hours. But the US-citisens wake up in 2 hours....

那个平台啊？让我们去围观围观!

Holy crap at that volatility. btcchina just gave you an opportunity to increase your btc 25% in that one drop. It's time to transfer some coins... I almost did earlier but was afraid it's some kind of trap to lure in arbiteurs and steal their coins.

One property of the Bitcoin system (and so far, of all altcoins) is that there is a public record of all transactions, including the amount and derivation of all "coins" ie, unspent txouts. 

In the presence of datamining, this effectively de-anonymizes vast parts of the entire system.  And that's a problem. 

It would be good if we could verify the transactions conformance to protocol rules with respect to amounts (ie, verify that the outputs are equal to or less than the inputs) without revealing the amounts themselves.  Zerocoin was one solution to this, but I would rather attack it at the level of individual transactions.

Proof of "less than" is very hard, probabilistic, and would add huge bulk to the blockchain.  But proof of "equal" is possible and compact, and requires only one adjustment to protocol rules: We must explicitly represent the coin intended as the transaction fee, so that proof of equality is applicable to all transactions.

In the Benaloh homomorphic cryptosystem,  the public key is a modulus M and a base B.  For a plaintext P, a blocksize L, and some shared number N greater than 0 and less than M, the encryption of P is:

(B raised to the Pth power, multiplied by N raised to the L power) modulo M. 

This is interesting because for any two integers X and Y whose sum is less than B, the product of Encrypt(X) and Encrypt(Y) equals Encrypt( (X + Y) mod B).  And because addition and multiplication are both associative, this is true of any set of more than two integers as well. 

That is to say, for any given set of plaintext numbers, the product of the encrypted numbers equals the encryption of the sum of the numbers.   Since we want to test that the inputs and outputs add to the same sum, we can do so by testing that the encrypted inputs and the encrypted outputs have the same modular product, even when we don't know what the numbers are. 

Key management is a somewhat complex problem; to verify that the output coins add up to the same amount as the input coins, you need all the coins to be encoded using the same Benaloh key.  Therefore having the Benaloh key used for any output coin of a transaction enables you to learn the amounts for all input coins and output coins of that transaction.   That means that all the participants know what's going on in the transaction, which is, IMO, as it should be. 

But I need to figure out a good way for blockchain checkers to verify that the presented input coins shown in the current transaction  encrypted with the common key of the current transaction, are in fact the same amounts as the identified output coins of their previous transactions, which of course show in the blockchain encrypted using the keys of previous transactions.

I have solutions for limited cases where coins are not subdivided or combined.  (ie, input coins can change ownership in a transaction becoming output coins, in a way that's verifiable, without having their value revealed).   But when these coins are eventually subdivided or combined, their value is revealed as soon as one of the resulting coins is spent.  If at least one of the participants in a transaction does not value (or negatively values) privacy, this can happen as soon as that participant comes into possession of a coin.

Does anybody have a better solution for the last part of this problem?

When a block of work is done they are paid a certain amount of coins.

Must be coming from the original Client I would guess.

Peter is known as a vehement proponent of blockchain frugality, I wouldn't count his comment as authoritative.

Currency is a special case of arbitrary assets. If there's no support to turn Bitcoin into a platform for decentralized digital arbitrary assets, we'll just have to create a new one based on the same principles.

I think that by the time this is a problem, Bitcoin or an alt would be modified to natively support tag-based coloring, and then verifying a CC transaction will be as easy as verifying a Bitcoin transaction.