|
TheAlchemist (OP)
|
 |
June 07, 2011, 02:43:26 PM
Last edit: May 12, 2018, 11:09:39 AM by TheAlchemist |
|
Sources: 1969568.28324 / 6460600 = 30.5% Since (1) is based on the top 100 addresses and one person can own multiple addresses, there are some extremely rich people out there. It cannot be good for ~100 people to own 30% of all Bitcoin... P.S. I'm pretty new at Bitcoin, so please correct me if my math is wrong or I'm mis-understanding something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
elggawf
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:51:42 PM |
|
Why? The Bitcoin economy is still relatively tiny to the rest of the world. I'd be interested in seeing how many of those accounts have done anything at all with their wealth, there's a good potential some of it might be lost forever (if I'd generated several thousand BTC and then deleted it thinking it would never be worth anything, I would take that secret shame to my grave right now).
But regardless of if all those address are still that wealthy and it's all concentrated in at or under 100 people - how's that any different to the USA, where in 2007 the top 1% owned some 42% of the wealth?
The difference between Bitcoins and wealth in fiat currency is that it's non-trivial to turn Bitcoins into more Bitcoins... these people are not your masters, so who cares?
Most of those incredibly wealthy people are early adopters from when difficulty was incredibly low... good luck to them. They're probably not likely to cash out soon, and if they do they'll likely do it in a way that doesn't destroy the market (reducing their gains) and in the next decade or so their wealth will become a more reasonable fraction of the entire economy.
I guess I just don't see this as a huge issue, beyond natural envy.
|
^_^
|
|
|
Timo Y
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1001
bitcoin - the aerogel of money
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:52:22 PM |
|
It cannot be good for ~100 people to own 30% of all Bitcoins...
Why not? Most of those people are passionate about Bitcoin, and will do everything in their power to make it succeed. If they become super-wealthy we will stand a chance against the old wealthy elites who will try to fight Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:53:16 PM |
|
one person can own multiple addresses
Don't forget: One address can be owned by multiple people. |
|
|
|
|
TheAlchemist (OP)
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:55:25 PM |
|
Don't forget: One address can be owned by multiple people.
Would you mind explaining that one? |
|
|
|
|
|
Findeton
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:56:24 PM |
|
Sources: 1969568.28324 / 6460600 = 30.5% Since (1) is based on the top 100 addresses and one person can own multiple addresses, there are some extremely wealthy individuals out there. It cannot be good for ~100 people to own 30% of all Bitcoins... P.S. I'm pretty new at Bitcoin stuff, so please correct me if my math is wrong or I'm mis-understanding something. If you want to change that, make them a good offer. |
|
|
|
|
Jack of Diamonds
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:57:49 PM |
|
Don't forget: One address can be owned by multiple people.
Would you mind explaining that one? They could be reserve wallets of large exchangers like MtGox etc. |
1f3gHNoBodYw1LLs3ndY0UanYB1tC0lnsBec4USeYoU9AREaCH34PBeGgAR67fx
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:59:22 PM |
|
Don't forget: One address can be owned by multiple people.
Would you mind explaining that one? They could be reserve wallets of large exchangers like MtGox etc. Yep, or it could be as simple as my brother and I working as a team. |
|
|
|
|
jerfelix
|
|
June 07, 2011, 02:59:52 PM |
|
Since (1) is based on the top 100 addresses and one person can own multiple addresses, there are some extremely wealthy individuals out there.
The 3rd highest is only $1.3M in wealth. #4 through 100 are lower than that. Not sure where "$1.3M" is "extremely wealthy", but it sure isn't here in the US. (not that $1.3M isn't a lot of money, but "extremely" wealthy. naaaah.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:01:26 PM |
|
Not sure where "$1.3M" is "extremely wealthy", but it sure isn't here in the US.
Maybe in US highschools and universities... Bitcoin community is a young crowd, no? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BubbleBoy
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:29:47 PM |
|
1969568.28324 / 6460600 = 30.5%
I'd say the disparity is much higher. Probably the correct distribution is that less than 10 people own more than 50% of the money supply, and less than 100 own more than 90%. You can infer this from the popularity graph of bitcoin.org, that nicely matches the hash rate: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bitcoin.orghttp://bitcoin.sipa.beDuring 2009 and the first part of 2010 half of existing bitcoins were mined at hash rates bellow 0.01 Ghash/s - a few desktop computers. There is absolutely no point in arguing about the largest wallet size - an owner can have many wallets. |
|
|
|
TraderTimm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1121
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:32:02 PM |
|
I suggest you start with an act of good faith and give me all of your bitcoin balance. After all, if you can't be bothered to back your philosophy with actions, then what good is it? I eagerly await your contribution. Update: Still nothing sent to my bitcoin address below, I guess he's all talk... |
fortitudinem multis - catenum regit omnia
|
|
|
|
TheAlchemist (OP)
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:33:00 PM
Last edit: May 12, 2018, 11:00:58 AM by TheAlchemist |
|
Why not? Most of those people are passionate about Bitcoin, and will do everything in their power to make it succeed. If they become super-wealthy we will stand a chance against the old wealthy elites who will try to fight Bitcoin.
I wasn't thinking of this from a "wealth" perspective but that about health of a network. While the majority of large Bitcoin owners will want to investing in the security of the Bitcoin network, my concern is potential for manipulation of the market. A few bad apples could spoil it for all of us, IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:37:35 PM |
|
one person can own multiple addresses
Don't forget: One address can be owned by multiple people. how can that be true? |
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:39:13 PM |
|
one person can own multiple addresses
Don't forget: One address can be owned by multiple people. how can that be true? Scroll up. Don't forget: One address can be owned by multiple people.
Would you mind explaining that one? They could be reserve wallets of large exchangers like MtGox etc. Yep, or it could be as simple as my brother and I working as a team. |
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:39:39 PM |
|
While the majority of the those large Bitcoin owners will want to invest in the security of the Bitcoin network, my concern is with the potential for manipulation of the market. A few bad apples could spoil it for all of us, IMHO.
How? |
|
|
|
|
|
Jaime Frontero
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:55:07 PM |
|
Sources: 1969568.28324 / 6460600 = 30.5% Since (1) is based on the top 100 addresses and one person can own multiple addresses, there are some extremely wealthy individuals out there. It cannot be good for ~100 people to own 30% of all Bitcoins... P.S. I'm pretty new at Bitcoin stuff, so please correct me if my math is wrong or I'm mis-understanding something. yes. you are mis-understanding something. the opportunity which you perceive - to own Bitcoin, to profit from them, and to use a currency with all of the advantages Bitcoin has and none of the disadvantages of government-controlled fiat currency - is the direct result of those 100 people taking the first steps on the path to an intelligent form of money. without them - without their willingness to take which was, at the time, an incredible risk - none of us would have anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
June 07, 2011, 04:07:08 PM |
|
I want to continue to talk with you, but since you don't want to elaborate, I would be refuting my own assumptions. |
|
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
June 07, 2011, 04:09:52 PM |
|
without them - without their willingness to take which was, at the time, an incredible risk - none of us would have anything.
an "incredible risk" to use some cpu time to generate coins? Yet there is "zero risk" of the now-disappeared satoshi of simply buying up all the asks when he feels it has been a profitable enough project for him? I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of risk. Whether you consider it risk or not, they were necessary. Would you be looking at Bitcoin right now if it was only trading for .001 USD and there were a grand total of 2 websites that mention it? Probably not. And if you would be, you would be an early adopter, and people like you would be complaining about people like you simply because you saw a worthwhile project and decided to invest your time into it. |
|
|
|
|
|
