And BTW, the days destroyed is a bit complicated to explain, but to prove that that argument is invalid I just took a look at the
500 richest address and I can see that most of these addresses had the first input late 2013 and in 2014, so most likely many of these adopters did something with their Bitcoins in other word they have been moving funds
Bitcoin days destroyed is a bit complicated. Instead I will post a picture of just a few addresses and say I have seen something meaningful in 500.
If you are going to post analysis, try and put some actual analysis in there please.
copy paste from the Bitcoin wiki ( the one wiki that no one bother to visit/read):
Bitcoin days destroyed for any given transaction is calculated by taking the number of Bitcoins in a transaction and multiplying it by the number of days it has been since those coins were last spent.
so if I had 50000
BTC siting in my address for 1 year, and I decided to move/spend 1000
BTC, the days destroyed for that transaction would be 1000*365, which is not that big really when looking to the daily sum:
Usually people notice the days destroyed spike when there is a huge transaction, for example the Bitstamp audit that too place in November last year...it is very rare that people spend/move such an amount at once, so there is a scenario where big holders moved the coins in small transactions. and left them on the exchange to sell at the proper time (whenever they want to do so).
this is the average days destroyed for one transaction:
it is not that complicated, but the fact that people keep bringing this up makes me think about how complicated it must be for them to simply read the wiki.
Poll
