Jack1Rip1BurnIt (OP)
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Trust me, these default swaps will limit the risks
|
 |
October 20, 2012, 01:02:46 AM |
|
|
Successful trades with bels, misterbigg, ChrisNelson, shackleford, geniusboy91, and Isokivi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The grue lurks in the darkest places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zoinky
|
|
October 20, 2012, 03:58:27 AM |
|
Feel like this article has 10+ threads.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
October 20, 2012, 07:36:59 AM |
|
It's a meaningless number.
Seals has X deposits. We haven't gone below (X * 0.78) in a long time so roughly (X * .78) coins are sitting dead still. So what? Tons of users have been moving coins around and that doesn't even count all the moving that doesn't happen on the blockchain (playing and internal transfers).
If it isn't clear. It is totally possible that all of our members used (by any definition, played, transferred, withdrew) all of their coins during the period that 78% of them sat still.
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
istar
|
|
October 20, 2012, 09:48:41 AM |
|
It could also be interpreted as 78% think that Bitcoin is currently way undervalued and will not sell all their coins at this time.
Which is a positive thing since it gives it better longterm value and means that it really is way much more stable than what people think.
|
Bitcoins - Because we should not pay to use our money
|
|
|
Vandroiy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 20, 2012, 10:57:37 PM |
|
Well, Bitcoin price is supported by almost pure speculation. Not necessarily a bad thing, but price can drop by quite a bit depending on how many people really provide liquidity instead of just buying and hoarding at any price. The 78% number is quite an arbitrary thing though. Media guys.  |
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
October 21, 2012, 12:29:25 AM |
|
kind of a weird stat... doesn't mean 78% the coins never moved, it just means 78% of the Address used have no outputs yet?
is that right?
The 22% of Address that do have outputs, how many outputs do they have and what is the totaly number of BTC ever sent?
|
|
|
|
|
Yuhfhrh
|
|
October 21, 2012, 12:57:48 AM |
|
kind of a weird stat... doesn't mean 78% the coins never moved, it just means 78% of the Address used have no outputs yet?
is that right?
The 22% of Address that do have outputs, how many outputs do they have and what is the totaly number of BTC ever sent?
I was having some of the same thoughts... |
|
|
|
|
piramida
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1010
Borsche
|
|
October 21, 2012, 11:22:37 AM |
|
Did you even read the article then? It clearly says, that 78% of the total BTC ever produced have been located at addresses, which never sent any coin. Of that, 60% were more than 3 months old at the time it was measured (meaning, 46% of all BTCs were stale at addresses with no outgoing transactions for more than 3 months).
Total volume of transactions is pretty much irrelevant for this research, it could be one coin circulating rapidly. Also, it does not mean that these 46% of coin have never been used - they have been idle for three months, but they may have been moving 4+ months ago. We all have cold storage wallets with some percentage which have not been touched for several months, so that also contributes to these numbers.
|
i am satoshi
|
|
|
|
