Bitcoin ownership distribution vibes from Bitreserve

[Biodom]

There is a blurb posted today from new Bitreserve CEO that 957 people own 50% of bitcoin.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/bitreserve-ceo-on-bitcoin-challenges-long-term-goals/vi-AAc19UU
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114664/new-bitreserve-ceo-appears-on-msn-money-to-discuss-future-of-company-and-bitcoin

This is way more concentrated than Rpietila estimate that ~100K people own 50% of bitcoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0

I wonder if 957 people having 50% of bitcoin is an accurate number. I suspect that it is not.
In addition-even if it is so, nothing could be done apart from slow diffusion following appreciation.
What exactly he will be proposing-some kind of re-distribution to which no one will agree?
I don't see how the coins could be pried from people who want to hold them in perpetuity.

[1714046081]

1714046081

[1714046081]

1714046081

[1714046081]

1714046081

[gentlemand]

Bitreserve are something of an odd fish in the crypto world. They've repeatedly made some fairly disparaging comments about BTC.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was in the right ballpark though fuck knows how he can claim such precision. There are quite a few people who've claimed to have tens to hundreds of thousands of coins. Up until 2-3 years ago you could've obtained a giant slice of the pie for very little comparable outlay.

By the nature of its rise from obscurity, there would've been a tiny number of early miners who scooped up vast quantities. Nothing much anyone can do about it other than hope they spend or use it wisely.

[Alley]

That's a average of 7500 per person.  Doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility.

[deluxeCITY]

I sincerely think that there are more then 1000 people holding 50% of bitcoin.

[Amph]

it is strange that there are still all those people holding so many coins, after all the dumping that there was on the market since the 1200 peak, the only explanation is that some whale bought those from another whale

so basically whales are not really distributing their health via dumping, because those who can buy their coins are only other whales...

[gentlemand]

it is strange that there are still all those people holding so many coin, after all the dumping that there was on the market since the 1200 peak, the only explanation is that some whale bought those from another whale

so basically whales are not really distributing their health via dumping, because those who can buy their coin are only other whales...

Look at the plans of some of the biggest declared holders. Tim Draper wanted the coins to provide liquidity for his businesses. The Winklevii need theirs for COIN. Roger Ver does a ton of angel investing. And on and on.

None of these guys have the slightest interest in tricking each other out of their coins on exchanges. That's for smaller fry.

[Soros Shorts]

None of these guys have the slightest interest in tricking each other out of their coins on exchanges. That's for smaller fry.

Indeed. The Bitcoin economy would do better without these parasitic traders. They may generate trading volume but from the view of other market participants they take away liquidity at the best price and then turn around and give it back at a worse price.

[ajareselde]

I honestly doubt how that information is legit, and i'm confident that bitcoins are much more spread out across the users.
But even if this was to be true, i doubt they are arranging price manipulation of sorts.

cheers

[Biodom]

I honestly doubt how that information is legit, and i'm confident that bitcoins are much more spread out across the users.
But even if this was to be true, i doubt they are arranging price manipulation of sorts.

cheers

He is a finance guy first and foremost.
Now, he comes in as a CEO of a bitcoin company and basically says that he doesn't like the fact that bitcoin is concentrated.

I assume that his numbers are not accurate, and if it is so, typically it does not bode well for someone's credibility if your reference point is wrong.
If, on the other hand, his numbers are accurate, then two questions:

1. Where did he get the numbers?
2. What he is planning to do about it as he portrayed the uneven distribution as a major weakness of bitcoin which is preventing its wider use.

[hodlmybtc]

Maybe 957 addresses contain 50% of all coins.

Addresses =/= people tho.

[Biodom]

Maybe 957 addresses contain 50% of all coins.

Addresses =/= people tho.

No, top 957 addresses contain ~38% coins. I also think that at least some of those are exchanges and other corps.
use the sum of pages 1-10 (until 957).
http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100?page=1

[Odalv]

why this site reports 67,723,836  addresses under 0.001
 http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=350000

and this only 830,739 + 2,795,971 = 3,626,710  under 0.01
 https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

What number is right ?

[Biodom]

why this site reports 67,723,836  addresses under 0.001
 http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=350000

and this only 830,739 + 2,795,971 = 3,626,710  under 0.01
 https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

What number is right ?

maybe the first number represents all addresses, including those with zero balance, while bitinfocharts only include those with a non-zero balance?

[tvbcof]

My bet is that the first guy is far closer then reptilia, and even then he very well have over-estimated.

That in some way sucks, but in another way...

---

Bitcoin with it's public ledger is far from private even if one wishes to be.  When one does not wish to be, it is trivial to prove certain things and develop a track record.

Sidechains backed by Bitcoin look to be a near certainty.  One of the few real problems with them is  that BTC hodlers can game the entire eco-system by supporting given sidechains with backing, then withdrawing that support strategically.

The 'public ledger' aspect of Bitcoin is almost custom made for producing a track record as a reliable backer.  When I use some of my stash to backstop sidechains who I wish to support, I'll be doing so out of a pool that anyone can analyze.  I intend to try to develop a long duration record of reliability.  As I shift backing around, I'll do so with reasonable care so as not to fuck up a sidechain's circulation...unless they deserve it of course.  It is the transparency rather than the opacity of Bitcoin which really what makes it a 'killer app' as a reserve-currency/backing-store.

BTW, I'm not trying to claim I'm some sort of a 'big fish' (and I'm not) but mostly just elaborating on how I can see things shaping up.  Lots of cycles have been expended trying to figure out how to make Bitcoin private.  It was always just a 'gut sense' that this effort was to some degree wasted, but I never quite put my finger on why.  There will absolutely be sidechains which focus on this aspect and will do a much better job of it.

---

Another way I feel that privacy (and even anonymity to a degree) is harmful is that players might develop a reliance on it.  If that fails (which is likely to happen) then they experience a system failure.  If, on the other hand, they build with a focus on other things (e.g., developing the ability to say 'Yup.  that's me.  Fuck off.' ) that will probably result in a more robust system.