Seems that the problem is not the lack of purchasing power but the lack of free market. It does not help to send money, if the people are not able to buy what they need. As for sending supplies, you pretty much need to know the person who will allocate them, to make sure they reach the needy. We happened to visit Andhra Pradesh in late 2004, just before the tsunami. We were then in a prime position to send effective emergency aid by channels we had just audited were working properly.

I am sure that the world will develop very innovative solutions for the money allocation problem as soon as the governments realize they better get out of the way of the free movement of goods.

Thank you very much for your effort. Now if you think there is somebody to whom I can trust to send 500mBTC to be used for replacing of basic kitchen equipment, blankets, buy rice etc., hit me with a PM. But only if you believe it will truly help.

Is it customary that all non-US customers also lose all their funds? I am not knowledgeable of the topic.

Reading the link helps. It is not based on wallets but multiple sources.

I forgot that I know what I am talking about, but you don't know that I know. I am too busy to explain anything concerning silver, but dig my old posts if you want to learn.



Edit: Smiley added just for the reason to not sound patronizing. It is a fascinating concept how to make the short squeeze but I don't want to talk about it in public nor with people who don't have the btc to buy up all the silver.

Here I was thinking that perhaps a mere 1 million does not change anybody's life at least in high-cost countries. But several million will do. Depends on person, but most of us will feel considerable economic freedom after the net worth hits 2, 3, 5 or 10 million. I don't think anyone who started with humble means can say that $10 million is not enough for personal needs for the rest of his life.

The number of 10-millionaires is still small, but this (the economically free people, no matter how many million) is the class that can have considerable impact if they just

It is easy to give himself as an example. So I do I switched to all-Bitcoin in March 2013 and have spent 66 hours per month writing on this forum. If I was short of money, I could rake in anything between $200-$5000 per hour doing various things. But I regard writing about Bitcoin economics as more important. I am free to do it, and I am changing the world with my own small part.

The world at large is still absolutely clueless about Bitcoin. We can say that the general awareness was only really reached last month. The previous bubbles generated publicity, which faded away. Now it is not fading away, it is gaining grassroots adoption, and I believe that by trickling the knowledge that I and others generate, to the masses, the party can go on and on. It is possible that 2014 will be the year of Bitcoin. Yes, I am aware that 2013 already saw 100x gains

That list is one of the inputs in the distribution by brackets thread. Just comparing the addresses does not give the correct picture of the very large holdings (multiple addresses, unspent block rewards), and also ignores the ppl with solely exchange accounts.

Whoever really wants to delve into the matter should read that thread.

He is already.

If I recall correctly, the paper is from the time when bitcoin was trading at about $10. With my rake model, these entities have since shed 70% of their holdings, on average. I have included 350k DPR hidden stash and 400k mystery owners + all that I believe beyond reasonable doubt have 100k or more. The rest is statistics. The difficult part is that we don't know if for example Winklevoss have sold a part of their coins or not. They are sitting on 10,000% gains and their price projections are conservative so they may not be über bull.

The possible existence of large hidden holders is something that cannot be ruled out, still. The 400k may be 1-2M if somebody has a masterplan. At any rate it does not affect the rest of the distribution, and due to bitcoin's crashy nature, even economically I don't think these pose a threat. They are in position to do wonderful things though upon coming public 

Incorrect. Bitcoin did not exist in 2008. What Sirius sold in 2009 for $5 was exactly the same thing that, if kept, would now be worth $5M.

The market cap and the 14B% is of course a publicity stunt, but the 1M% increase is very much real. He told this to me in person.

Distribution figures here.

At $1100 per bitcoin, there is between 1000-1200 people whose bitcoin stash is valued at $1 million or more.

I think the emergence of a new bitcoin Jet Set class will have a great positive impact on bitcoin's price going forward. What do you think?

Don't worry, it will fluctuate by hundreds just whether it is daily high or low, and whether it's Gox or Stamp price

No, silly. We are talking about short covering here. Sometimes it does no good but to repeat:

If someone would take the effort to call the worldwide silver bluff, he will not take fiat.

Might you be able to simulate this with random price development? (I can only do it in Excel, and that way it'd take some time)

An interesting metric would be: what percentage of coins are in the hands of people, for whom the holding represents X% of portfolio.

This does not necessarily correlate with the weakness of hand though. If someone has near 100% in BTC, he is probably quite strong, otherwise he would not have so much. Those with over 100% are leveraged and weak. Those with quite much could be the weakest, since they sell periodically and give their coins to new entrants. Those with little should be strong, since it is not a big deal to them. On the other hand many of them are newbies and easy to scare, or are only after a quick double and then sell, or just have not developed their confidence yet.

But I see a great asset in the 930 (mBTC=USD) millionaires, me included. This number is up from only about 150 a month ago! We are in the position to continue the world-changing because money is not an issue any more. So in this sense the world-changing potential has gone up 6x when price increased only 5x. And there are many more to come in the BTC100-BTC1,000 category

I would say that the number of full-time bitcoiners is also growing fast. Where I live, the first million does not give economic freedom, but a paid-for house, and a million in the bank does.

There is a portfolio allocation strategy called PISTOL, in which you set the percentages for RE, stocks, bonds, cash and gold. Then you annually readjust the portfolio, which lets the winners run some time before buying more of the "undervalued" investments. The problem is that it basically gives you just a weighted return of those asset classes, and not more. It did not perform well in the simulations.

If you buy back after a turn to the downside, you essentially lose the hedging part and if you do it enough, you just waste all your cash (or whatever investments you have aside BTC) if BTC goes to zero. That is the risk we want to hedge against, not gamble with.

Of course there is the temptation to buy back. If that becomes too big, just set the rake-% lower. With 5% rake your portfolio tends towards 90% bitcoin 10% other. Another approach would be to rake constantly (but minute amounts) after minute increases in price, and then have a percentage drop (say, 25%) after which you start to buy back. Then you get to keep the top 25% regardless. I haven't simulated this yet maybe it's a stupid idea. However I'm pretty sure that most if not all people do better if the strategy does not allow leeway.

If someone would take the effort to call the worldwide silver bluff, he will not take fiat.

New figures just came out

I am thinking that the initial buy-in should be DCA'd a little, even though it nets fewer coins, it increases investor confidence. What about the following idea:

- Invest first the amount that you can confidently lose without a blink. Regard this amount as lost.
- Repeat weekly until you haven't had the urge to buy more for several weeks
- All that money is lost, do not calculate its value every day, spend your time learning about bitcoin rather
- As long as you buy more, you don't sell any. This is a rule: earliest selling is 90 days after last purchase.
- Then only compile the SSS diversification plan and set the parameters.

From another thread:


Add to this:

I instructed the newcomers to buy only BTC1 when my bearish call was in force. Now you can buy as much as you want, because the probability of a prolonged crash from these levels is lowered. Just remember to invest what you can afford to lose, because Bitcoin is in beta, and nobody guarantees it. Probably till the day it does away with fiat, it is still guaranteed by no one 

Important thing is that it refused to be pricked, and bounced straight back from $800 (bitstamp), which has become a strong support. The probability that it will be breached (for anything more but a flashcrash, maximum) has strongly diminished.

Gox also held well.

But who had a look at BTC China? It refused to be manipulated at all! The spread between China and Bitstamp went to +20% due to stamp crashing, whereas both the day before and after it was close to 0%. China is providing so immense liquidity that it has changed the game totally.

The weekend was the best opportunity for taking the price down, and all tricks were pulled, but it seems to have just proven that the $1,000 level is legitimate. It is a nice, round figure, and fundamentals and exponential trends are soon catching it. The lacking volume in these prices, which was my concern, and the topic of this thread, has feen fulfilled.

I am sorry if my bearish call in Nov 19 was misinterpreted as an exhortation to sell all, or even half of anyone's holdings. With bitcoin, most of the holdings should be in cold storage and the rest diversified to other forms of wealth according to a predetermined plan, for example the SSS plan.