|
It is saddening to see that people's lives can be destroyed over something as trivial as money. I mean, in the static world of the past, money was something you needed to work for, and still getting wealthy took a long time and not everyone made it.
Hopefully everyone concerned will take heed to the most important thing: buy bitcoins yourself and after 2 years no need to work evermore. No more drug lords, no more FBI agents.
|
|
|
|
Wait - I don't read blockchain very often so I'm not entirely sure what i'm looking at here. Is that 144K Bitcoin and does it all belong to one person? (i.e. the US gvmt) I don't get the "400 are 1" part, but this address likely is part of the FBI seizure. Address belongs to feds, but the coins belong to their rightful owners unless and until those owners are found guilty of crimes that result in seizure of property. It is cool - in the current monetary system the money masters see everyone's account, but don't need to divulge their own accounts, and can create money at will. In Bitcoin, the small guys can see and tag the government's accounts, but not the other way round, and nobody can cheat in money creation. I <3 Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
New base case, with the following parameters: - Number of large holders is small (no "hidden premine" by Satoshi's friends, governments, malicious entities etc.) - Number of bitcoin users is moderate (350,000, an educated guess after consulting many sources with low precision) - Distribution model as previously - I will update these to the OP also | #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | | 50 | BTC10k+ | 2.9M | | 1100 | BTC1k-10k | 3.1M | | 12k | BTC100-1k | 3.3M | | 58k | BTC10-100 | 1.8M | | 110k | BTC1-10 | 0.4M | | 110k | BTC0.1-1 | 0.1M | | 57k | BTC0-0.1 | 0.0M |
|
|
|
|
Copied this from another thread. It took 2 hours to write, enjoy! (I have written a book about monetary history in Finnish) What will the price of BTC be when 22 million people know that bitcoin is not gold and that there are many altcoins which work exactly like bitcoin?
What will the price of BTC be when the major exchanges like MtGox, Btcchina & co. add other coins on their platform?
Why is gold much more valuable than silver, despite that it has way less actual uses? Why is dollar more valuable than gold, even though everyone knows that it is a unit of unpayable debt from a bankrupt government? Marketability. Salability. Hoardability. You can use dollar everywhere, whereas gold you must sell and convert, and that happens differently in every country, involving hassle and fees. With silver, the situation is pathetic, and despite being the layman's money for 25 centuries, it does not function as currency anywhere today. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu tells that 50 kilograms of silver is enough for upkeep of a 100,000-strong army for one day. Today that same amount has a purchasing power of mere $35k. I venture to guess that 35M is required today. This is an illustration that monetary elements' valuation can change over time when changes in their monetary properties occur. As a investment silver merchant, I am very much aware that silver is "poor man's gold". For a rich man the difficulty of obtaining a large holding of silver is prohibitive. Buffett bought silver in the 1990s, and it took years for him to receive it, for the sellers had difficulty procuring it from the market. Silver price and silver lease rates shot up 50%. He was instructed to sell the holding before it caused more disruption to the silver market. Then I know a person who owned a few million$ worth of silver, and had to do it via banks due to the lach of physical merchants. He too was swindled out of his holdings. I am pretty much the "highest" guy who can own silver free of government intervention. Even if this wasn't the problem, the problem is the fact that buying and selling so much is a large international operation. Even for people less wealthy than me, silver is often too much of a hassle especially as most of its attributes are found in gold, you essentially trade some leverage for marketability. The largest practical silver holding is less than $100k and do not expect to trade it because dealers will suck you dry. Something that sucks so bad in hoardability cannot be money. ( Silvervault is my creation that is designed to empower physical silver to work as money; currently it has not succeeded in the main mission but is well functioning as a depository.) Gold fares a little (2 orders of magnitude  ) better, because you can pack 100 times the value of silver in the same space. Market does not collapse if you try to buy and sell $1 million worth of physical gold, it is always available (well not always, but that is again those behind-the-scenes things, which are not the main issue here). Even countries have gold reserves, but gold is currently so cheap that the largest players who want gold (China, Russia) cannot buy it from the market since the largest holders (international bankers) are not selling. Even a humble request to get back the gold that you own (Germany, from USA) is turned down. Finland knows better to not even ask for its reserves. (When Bank of Finland was questioned this, the answer was that they are happy that gold is safely stored in London and other places. My interpretation: no chance to ever see the gold.) The basis of dollar's value is in its monetary attributes. If it was not so ubiquituos and accepted everywhere, I highly doubt that it would be able to reach its current dominance. After 150 years of dirty tricks, assassinations, coups, puppet governments, wars with millions of deaths, and the building of a socialist system that constitutes 50% of the economic activity, it has this role, though. Companies that produce stuff and have been profitable for decades in a row, do not enjoy the same credit rating and must pay higher interest. The reason is that companies are smaller and the marketability of their debt is thus weaker. Midsize corporations also have the political risk of running into adversities if they do not conform to the unwritten rules of their domicile, no matter how solid the business was. "Democratic" governments cannot default on their debts, this was by the way a major reason why England gained dominance in 1700s - interest rate was lower, boosting investment. In the continent, kings needed to pay more, since the successor did not always assume their debts. That some good gains a monetary status (that it acts as money) is not an everyday occurrence. In very early times it has been hypothesized that salt and cattle were used as money. When metals became available, they became the money par excellence, not always available to the public due to their high price, but being the unit of value, medium of exchange in large purchases, and especially store of value. This has continued until present day, only in the 20th century has the common perception of what is money, changed from metal to numbers of an abstract unit. That some good gains a dominant monetary status, does not happen in once per millennium. There is no explicit evidence that this has ever been occurred before the coercion-induced switch from gold to fiat in the 1900s. (It is debatable whether silver was dominant to gold prior to 1800s, because the values of their monetary stocks ("market caps") were in the same ballpark.) The reason why a money cannot gain dominance over another, is that a good money has the least possible inflation. To have a 1.2% inflation of gold today, the money supply would only about triple in 100 years. But if it grows so slowly, you never get started with your new money! There needs to be a stock to begin with, and it must grow at maximum very slowly. Ripple is an example of model, where money supply is fixed, but distribution is according to the whims of a soviet. Bitcoin is an example of model, where money supply is fixed, and distribution happens over more than 100 years according to a predetermined model where everyone can participate in a free market fashion. Ripple has at times been more valuable than Bitcoin, so the jury is still out. If people continue to buy ripples and keep the exchange rate up, it does not matter how OpenCoin distributes the stash. But I doubt that the fad will last, because XRP as a currency is hardly any improvement over USD, and is currently a terrible underdog in acceptance. (Can you buy anything with XRP?) Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a genuine improvement over both gold and USD. It is the most hoardable, since you can store and move an arbitrary amount of wealth as easily as you buy a sandwich. It has transactional capabilities which, when fully implemented, outdo all that Visa and PayPal can even dream of in their dollar economy. And it has a 2-year (2 orders of magnitude) lead over the nearest competitor, Litecoin. Even if you consider Litecoin to be technically superior to Bitcoin (I don't), it is a minor tweak and not a generational improvement. At present I cannot imagine anything which would be so much superior to Bitcoin than Bitcoin is to U.S. Dollar, and therefore it is not just improbable, but outright impossible that an altcoin would take over Bitcoin. Summary: Nothing prevents the public from buying gold or even silver, if they like. Altcoins will remain in niche applications, but the market cap ratio between Bitcoin and best altcoin will be on average 50:1, as is the market cap ratio between gold and silver, its nearest competitor. |
|
|
|
What will the price of BTC be when 22 million people know that bitcoin is not gold and that there are many altcoins which work exactly like bitcoin?
What will the price of BTC be when the major exchanges like MtGox, Btcchina & co. add other coins on their platform?
Why is gold much more valuable than silver, despite that it has way less actual uses? Why is dollar more valuable than gold, even though everyone knows that it is a unit of unpayable debt from a bankrupt government? Marketability. Salability. Hoardability. You can use dollar everywhere, whereas gold you must sell and convert, and that happens differently in every country, involving hassle and fees. With silver, the situation is pathetic, and despite being the layman's money for 25 centuries, it does not function as currency anywhere today. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu tells that 50 kilograms of silver is enough for upkeep of a 100,000-strong army for one day. Today that same amount has a purchasing power of mere $35k. I venture to guess that 35M is required today. This is an illustration that monetary elements' valuation can change over time when changes in their monetary properties occur. As a investment silver merchant, I am very much aware that silver is "poor man's gold". For a rich man the difficulty of obtaining a large holding of silver is prohibitive. Buffett bought silver in the 1990s, and it took years for him to receive it, for the sellers had difficulty procuring it from the market. Silver price and silver lease rates shot up 50%. He was instructed to sell the holding before it caused more disruption to the silver market. Then I know a person who owned a few million$ worth of silver, and had to do it via banks due to the lach of physical merchants. He too was swindled out of his holdings. I am pretty much the "highest" guy who can own silver free of government intervention. Even if this wasn't the problem, the problem is the fact that buying and selling so much is a large international operation. Even for people less wealthy than me, silver is often too much of a hassle especially as most of its attributes are found in gold, you essentially trade some leverage for marketability. The largest practical silver holding is less than $100k and do not expect to trade it because dealers will suck you dry. Something that sucks so bad in hoardability cannot be money. ( Silvervault is my creation that is designed to empower physical silver to work as money; currently it has not succeeded in the main mission but is well functioning as a depository.) Gold fares a little (2 orders of magnitude ) better, because you can pack 100 times the value of silver in the same space. Market does not collapse if you try to buy and sell $1 million worth of physical gold, it is always available (well not always, but that is again those behind-the-scenes things, which are not the main issue here). Even countries have gold reserves, but gold is currently so cheap that the largest players who want gold (China, Russia) cannot buy it from the market since the largest holders (international bankers) are not selling. Even a humble request to get back the gold that you own (Germany, from USA) is turned down. Finland knows better to not even ask for its reserves. (When Bank of Finland was questioned this, the answer was that they are happy that gold is safely stored in London and other places. My interpretation: no chance to ever see the gold.) The basis of dollar's value is in its monetary attributes. If it was not so ubiquituos and accepted everywhere, I highly doubt that it would be able to reach its current dominance. After 150 years of dirty tricks, assassinations, coups, puppet governments, wars with millions of deaths, and the building of a socialist system that constitutes 50% of the economic activity, it has this role, though. Companies that produce stuff and have been profitable for decades in a row, do not enjoy the same credit rating and must pay higher interest. The reason is that companies are smaller and the marketability of their debt is thus weaker. Midsize corporations also have the political risk of running into adversities if they do not conform to the unwritten rules of their domicile, no matter how solid the business was. "Democratic" governments cannot default on their debts, this was by the way a major reason why England gained dominance in 1700s - interest rate was lower, boosting investment. In the continent, kings needed to pay more, since the successor did not always assume their debts. That some good gains a monetary status (that it acts as money) is not an everyday occurrence. In very early times it has been hypothesized that salt and cattle were used as money. When metals became available, they became the money par excellence, not always available to the public due to their high price, but being the unit of value, medium of exchange in large purchases, and especially store of value. This has continued until present day, only in the 20th century has the common perception of what is money, changed from metal to numbers of an abstract unit. That some good gains a dominant monetary status, does not happen in once per millennium. There is no explicit evidence that this has ever been occurred before the coercion-induced switch from gold to fiat in the 1900s. (It is debatable whether silver was dominant to gold prior to 1800s, because the values of their monetary stocks ("market caps") were in the same ballpark.) The reason why a money cannot gain dominance over another, is that a good money has the least possible inflation. To have a 1.2% inflation of gold today, the money supply would only about triple in 100 years. But if it grows so slowly, you never get started with your new money! There needs to be a stock to begin with, and it must grow at maximum very slowly. Ripple is an example of model, where money supply is fixed, but distribution is according to the whims of a soviet. Bitcoin is an example of model, where money supply is fixed, and distribution happens over more than 100 years according to a predetermined model where everyone can participate in a free market fashion. Ripple has at times been more valuable than Bitcoin, so the jury is still out. If people continue to buy ripples and keep the exchange rate up, it does not matter how OpenCoin distributes the stash. But I doubt that the fad will last, because XRP as a currency is hardly any improvement over USD, and is currently a terrible underdog in acceptance. (Can you buy anything with XRP?) Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a genuine improvement over both gold and USD. It is the most hoardable, since you can store and move an arbitrary amount of wealth as easily as you buy a sandwich. It has transactional capabilities which, when fully implemented, outdo all that Visa and PayPal can even dream of in their dollar economy. And it has a 2-year (2 orders of magnitude) lead over the nearest competitor, Litecoin. Even if you consider Litecoin to be technically superior to Bitcoin (I don't), it is a minor tweak and not a generational improvement. At present I cannot imagine anything which would be so much superior to Bitcoin than Bitcoin is to U.S. Dollar, and therefore it is not just improbable, but outright impossible that an altcoin would take over Bitcoin. Summary: Nothing prevents the public from buying gold or even silver, if they like. Altcoins will remain in niche applications, but the market cap ratio between Bitcoin and best altcoin will be on average 50:1, as is the market cap ratio between gold and silver, its nearest competitor. |
|
|
|
|
If your holding is...
BTC10,000 => TOP-125 (42)
BTC1,000 => TOP-1300 (760)
BTC100 => TOP-13800 (5700)
BTC10 => TOP-85000 (28000)
Safe figures (optimistic figures in parenthesis, reality likely in between)
|
|
|
|
I calculated 3 scenarios, which I deemed most important to find the upper and lower limits for number of holders in each holding bracket. I did only the extreme cases, and got results that in my estimation were each unrealistic in their own way, so they serve well as limits, within which the reality falls. Case I. Very top-heavy distribution and 100,000 users. | #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | | 125 | BTC10k+ | 7.5M | | 640 | BTC1k-10k | 1.8M | | 4900 | BTC100-1k | 1.4M | | 22k | BTC10-100 | 0.7M | | 36k | BTC1-10 | 0.1M | | 27k | BTC0.1-1 | 0.0M | | 10k | BTC0-0.1 | 0.0M |
Case II. Very top-light distribution and 1.5 million users. | #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | | 42 | BTC10k+ | 2.5M | | 875 | BTC1k-10k | 2.5M | | 8570 | BTC100-1k | 2.4M | | 75k | BTC10-100 | 2.3M | | 408k | BTC1-10 | 1.6M | | 778k | BTC0.1-1 | 0.4M | | 233k | BTC0-0.1 | 0.0M |
Case III. Very top-light distribution and 100,000 users ("middle class model"). | #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | | 50 | BTC10k+ | 3.0M | | 1250 | BTC1k-10k | 3.5M | | 12500 | BTC100-1k | 3.5M | | 47k | BTC10-100 | 1.4M | | 28k | BTC1-10 | 0.1M | | 9000 | BTC0.1-1 | 0.0M | | 2000 | BTC0-0.1 | 0.0M |
(I did not do the simulation of top-heavy and many small users, since it was the most unrealistic of all - and its datapoints would still have fallen inside the limits set by the other scenarios). Therefore.... T h e r e a l i t y
| #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | | 42-125 | BTC10k+ | 2.5M-7.5M | | 640-1250 | BTC1k-10k | 1.8M-3.5M | | 4900-12500 | BTC100-1k | 1.4M-3.5M | | 22k-75k | BTC10-100 | 0.7M-2.3M | | 27k-407k | BTC1-10 | 0.1M-1.5M | | 9k-778k | BTC0.1-1 | 0.0M-0.2M | | 2k-233k | BTC0-0.1 | 0.0M |
With 80-90% confidence I think all the values fall within the limits above. The limits are extremely wide in smaller holdings, since I have less undisputable facts concerning them. But the nearer the top we go, the less variance there is. It seems to be easiest to deduce the BTC1k- BTC10k bracket, for it is the narrowest. No matter what we assume concerning the other parameters, there is a sizable number of bitcoins owned by people in this bracket, and the number is bound by the distribution model so that no great variance exists. |
|
|
|
Let's see it from the other side. Could the distribution become fair?
Can you compare it with 2009 / 2010 / 2011 / 2012 Rptiela?
It is possible to reconstruct the distribution in any past (or future, for that matter!) date with this model. After all the parameters are estimates anyway with wide tolerances. If somebody would take the time, we would have a nice series on how the coins are being distributed over time. As for fairness, I assume you would like the coins to be distributed in a much more equal way than they are. That is completely unnatural and not observed in any economy. It is somewhat possible to equalize the income of people and the governments are doing it as much as they can (not that they cared about the poor but it is an end-all to be able to control as much economic activity as possible, which can nicely be achieved by excessive taxation and redistribution). But it is totally impossible to equalize people's wealth, since most people are unwilling/incapable of wealth accumulation and will therefore always own almost nothing, regardless of income. Even governments cannot do anything to the distribution of wealth, which is by nature a logarithmic phenomenon, obeying its own distribution. If governments aggressively go after private wealth, they aggravate the inequality, since the wealth is just collected in even larger stashes and middle class is destroyed. Bitcoin distribution is the fairest when people have easy access to buy and sell them without hindrances. Then everybody can own as many as they deem fit. Satoshi will still own a million and most (currently: 99.99%) will own zero. |
|
|
|
What happens if you change some of your assumption parameters?
Seconded. When we do financial projections, we typically include best-guess scenario, and also include best-case and worst-case. Can you provide something like this with a list of parameters that would change? Also, did my explanation of my own situation help with the BTC1,000+ calculations any? I am currently thinking to reduce the model to two parameters: - number of users - top-heaviness (number of bitcoins owned by people who own BTC10k or more) Everything else would be according to the distribution model that I have derived and which corresponds to Silvervault behavior. Then by allowing 3 values for each parameter, we would have 9 scenarios: - Minimal top-heaviness would be that apart from Satoshi ( BTC980k and possibly more with machines using another software) there would be only a few holders of BTC10k or more. Perhaps BTC2.5M (incl S) would be a realistic lower limit. - Medium top-heaviness would be that 4 million coins are in this category. - In steep top-heaviness, there would be many large holders who have all along wanted to own the largest number of coins possible, individually or in concert. The number would be BTC7.5M (leaving only BTC4M to everyone else, since we assume that 0.4M is lost). - Minimal number of users I could say is 100,000 - Base case is the 350,000 that I derived in my last post. - Upper limit would be maybe 1.5 million. This would require figures from webwallets and exchanges to verify. |
|
|
|
25. Oct 2013: | #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | | 73 | BTC10k+ | 4.0M | | 1070 | BTC1k-10k | 3.0M | | 8600 | BTC100-1k | 2.4M | | 50k | BTC10-100 | 1.4M | | 147k | BTC1-10 | 0.5M | | 250k | BTC0.1-1 | 0.1M | | 133k | BTC0-0.1 | 0.0M |
Total: 11.4M bitcoins, 590k owners 110,000 people own bitcoins that are valued at more than $1,000 ( BTC5 or more). Here, the important parameters I used were: - average investment in bitcoin is $1000 (buy outright, or mining equipment) - estimated the percentage of holders whether they had invested at $100, $10, $1, $0.1 or $0.01 - Ones invested at $100/ BTC still have their whole investment, others have sold 20%, 40%, 60% or 80%, respectively. - Calculate weighted average, how much is the present value of an average remaining bitcoin investment (=$3,400, which is quite small for the reason that 80% were estimated to have bought in at about $100) - Divide bitcoin market cap by the previous figure, obtaining number of holders (700,000). - arrange the number of people in a certain log-bracket so that they approximately conform to bell curve (found out in other similar data that thy do) and satisfy the constraints of total bitcoins and the known stash of Satoshi and some idea of the top-heaviness of the distribution. <= it is essentially a parameter, how many coins to allocate to BTC10,000+ bracket. I think the realistic range is BTC3M to BTC7M, including Satoshi's 1M. - almost nothing in the distribution changes if the number of holders is 200k instead of 600-700k. The bulk of the bitcoins is held by the top, and their number is inversely correlated to their average holding. The average holding must follow certain rules so there are not many parameters. edit: Ah, as I was writing, I remembered that average remaining investment was calculated with bitcoin price of $100 instead of the current $200. This makes the total number of bitcoin users 350,000, which I think is very realistic considering other metrics. |
|
|
|
I rephrase the original question: A Bitcoin holder is one who knowingly holds a positive balance of bitcoins. The bitcoins may be held in blockchain via wallet software or in paper wallets, or with a 3rd party if the business of the 3rd party is strictly to hold them for you. Bitcoin loans for use other than safekeeping are counted as bitcoin balances of the borrower, not of the lender. Bitcoin stocks or any other instruments denominated as bitcoins, are not bitcoins. Altcoins or anything else are not bitcoins. And post a new estimate that takes into account the research I have done: 25. Oct 2013: | #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | | 73 | BTC10k+ | 4.0M | | 1070 | BTC1k-10k | 3.0M | | 8600 | BTC100-1k | 2.4M | | 50k | BTC10-100 | 1.4M | | 147k | BTC1-10 | 0.5M | | 250k | BTC0.1-1 | 0.1M | | 133k | BTC0-0.1 | 0.0M |
Total: 11.4M bitcoins, 590k owners 110,000 people own bitcoins that are valued at more than $1,000 ( BTC5 or more). |
|
|
|
How many users do we currently have?
best guess is to look at downloaded and active clients. unless anyone has better ideas? How much is this number? In the other thread I referred to Silvervault customer data. There I have percentages of people who have had a position but sold out, and also people who have registered but never bought anything. Silvervault was opened 1.7.2010, which is eeriely similar to MtGox... Applying these percentages to the number of downloaded clients would be a fair estimate. |
|
|
|
I can't wait til the Bitcoin 500 or 1000 (like Forbes 500) comes out! This is not very difficult to compile, only 2 things that are needed: - Make it somehow provable to disclose a bitcoin holding - Make it somehow profitable to disclose a holding. Due to concerns of privacy, it is likely that a large number of large holders wants to opt out (or downplay). Let them do it. If you look at the Forbes' Billionaires, the highest echelons do not appear there. The people on this list do not have much power, the people who are claimed to have power do not have much money => the logical conclusion is that people who have both money and power (I even statistically estimated this cohort to be between 200-1000 people) do not appear on the list. With bitcoin, it is all much easier. Total wealth or total power (or even total amount of fiat money) is hard to determine, also the money is debt -issue confuses matters. With bitcoin, you cannot have a large hall full of the richest holders hiding unaccountable. The absolutely known total number of bitcoins, public blockchain and statistical methods let you remain pseudonymous but not anonymous, by design. Quoting OP: The intention of this thread is not to uncover any names who don't want to be uncovered. |
|
|
|
why would you want to deduct satoshis holdings? He's the top of the pyramid. What I mean is to deduct known big holdings before estimating the distribution Ah... Deduct Deduce When saying "deduction" it is hard to distinguish I suppose it is best to try to deduce the known large holdings, and use this information to estimate the top-heaviness of the distribution, then deduct the known lost coins. After this deduction and subsequent deduction, we have a better estimate. Right?  |
|
|
|
The number of seats in higher echelons of bitcoin ownership is discussed here. 100 people will be able to hold BTC10,000 or more 1000 people will be able to hold BTC1,000 or more. Bitcoin has served these owners so well that they are generally unwilling to sell except maybe a small part of their holding. The price rise does not necessarily induce more selling (may be the opposite). In one year perhaps only 10-20% of the bitcoins of this club become available. We are talking about 1 million BTC. Conclusion: I have absolutely no idea, and would like to be able to estimate but cannot, but feel that it takes very little to move the price up now (or down, if you can keep pounding it). In March the "tear coefficient" ((change in bitcoin market cap)/(trading volume)) was 10, in a certain day. By applying this, market cap would go up 10 billion as a result of 1 billion purchase. I think it's about right. The very rich have probably been warned from buying bitcoins. Physical silver is a no-no for them also. |
|
|
|
The April crash inoculated us.
It kind of makes you feel stupid to sell low, so you tend to avoid it. If you still do, it transfers your bitcoins to better traders and solves the problem that way. My bold prediction is that we do not see a 40% crash before hitting $1000! |
|
|
|
|
My holdings were roughly in the following proportions when I last checked:
BTC: 63%
Silver: 25%
Gold: 7%
EUR: 3%
Stocks: 1%
Misc: 1%.
I am a professional in everything except stocks, so that's why I have a quite bold portfolio allocation.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that bitcoin's exchange rate grows roughly in proportion to the number of holders. Therefore it makes sense to buy as soon as possible.
The correct way is to determine what number of bitcoins you want and then buy it and not sell. (Think in BTC)
The wrong way is to wait until you can invest a certain amount of dollars, and then sell after a quick double. (Think in USD)
Now, the dollar richest naturally think in USD, and apply the wrong way. This keeps the majority of bitcoins always in the hands of the smart people who think in BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
