|
wachtwoord
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1136
|
|
October 30, 2013, 01:04:07 AM |
|
Not a bad ally to have and now he has the financial incentive too.
|
|
|
|
calian
|
|
October 30, 2013, 01:19:14 AM |
|
Another data point is Max Keiser said on his show "it feels good to be a bitcoin millionaire" back when doing so would have taken about 15k BTC.
|
|
|
|
gaston909
|
|
October 30, 2013, 04:00:50 PM |
|
I believe Max has about 20,000 or at least he did, he may have moved 1/2k into Bitcoin based investments.
|
|
|
|
|
wachtwoord
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1136
|
|
October 30, 2013, 04:30:32 PM |
|
What's the Y-axis?
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
October 30, 2013, 04:34:09 PM |
|
What's the Y-axis?
"increase in one month in BTC", that is how much wallets grow in 1 month (Y) according to the wallet balance (X). That's what I get from it at least
|
|
|
|
wachtwoord
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1136
|
|
October 30, 2013, 04:35:43 PM |
|
What's the Y-axis?
"increase in one month in BTC", that is how much wallets grow (Y) according the wallet size (X). That's what I get from it at least Maybe it's because it's almost dinner time, but I have no idea what you meant by that. How do they know how much people's holdings grow over time and why is this relevant here?
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
October 30, 2013, 04:39:45 PM |
|
Maybe it's because it's almost dinner time, but I have no idea what you meant by that. How do they know how much people's holdings grow over time and why is this relevant here?
they tracked just addresses' balances I guess. Seems feasible. It's relevant as a trend of BTC wealth distribution, which seems even more important than a snap at any point in time.
|
|
|
|
rpietila (OP)
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
|
|
October 30, 2013, 08:03:11 PM |
|
Maybe it's because it's almost dinner time, but I have no idea what you meant by that. How do they know how much people's holdings grow over time and why is this relevant here?
they tracked just addresses' balances I guess. Seems feasible. It's relevant as a trend of BTC wealth distribution, which seems even more important than a snap at any point in time. Where are all the addresses whose balance went down? Not in the chart above at least.. I haven't found the methodology yet.
|
HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
October 30, 2013, 09:09:37 PM |
|
Where are all the addresses whose balance went down? Not in the chart above at least.. I haven't found the methodology yet.
the paper can be downloaded here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3892v1
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 30, 2013, 09:27:39 PM |
|
Where are all the addresses whose balance went down? OK, I tried to stop myself but i can't: Answer: On the other side of infinity. My apologies for the nerdy math joke. Feel free to delete rpietila. Loving the thread, BTW.
|
|
|
|
rpietila (OP)
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
|
|
October 31, 2013, 04:15:01 PM |
|
New thread about the 500 bitcoin richest opened.
|
HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 31, 2013, 04:18:19 PM |
|
This paper has been thoroughly discussed, and I think even debunked, due to authors making a few mistakes and wrong assumptions. I hope I remember this correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but they assumed that large wallets belonging to exchanges and online wallet services were wallets of indiviidual wealthy owners, as opposed to belonging to many different owners, and even possibly lumped user's personal wallets together, if the users used the same address to trade on these exchanges. They also didn't take into account that wealthy bitcoin owners break up their wealth among many smaller accounts, and they linked a bunch of addresses together with the assumption that if one address sends money to another, both belong to the same person, despite the transaction possibly being between two people.
|
|
|
|
rpietila (OP)
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
|
|
October 31, 2013, 04:22:34 PM |
|
This paper has been thoroughly discussed, and I think even debunked, due to authors making a few mistakes and wrong assumptions. I hope I remember this correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but they assumed that large wallets belonging to exchanges and online wallet services were wallets of indiviidual wealthy owners, as opposed to belonging to many different owners, and even possibly lumped user's personal wallets together, if the users used the same address to trade on these exchanges. They also didn't take into account that wealthy bitcoin owners break up their wealth among many smaller accounts, and they linked a bunch of addresses together with the assumption that if one address sends money to another, both belong to the same person, despite the transaction possibly being between two people.
Is it so difficult to analyze it properly??
|
HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
|
|
|
User705
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
|
|
October 31, 2013, 04:54:34 PM |
|
This paper has been thoroughly discussed, and I think even debunked, due to authors making a few mistakes and wrong assumptions. I hope I remember this correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but they assumed that large wallets belonging to exchanges and online wallet services were wallets of indiviidual wealthy owners, as opposed to belonging to many different owners, and even possibly lumped user's personal wallets together, if the users used the same address to trade on these exchanges. They also didn't take into account that wealthy bitcoin owners break up their wealth among many smaller accounts, and they linked a bunch of addresses together with the assumption that if one address sends money to another, both belong to the same person, despite the transaction possibly being between two people. All wallets are in a sense personal wallets. Wallets that exchanges use "belong" to the exchange and the exchange owes users BTC upon demand that they might pay or not. So those wallets are more concentrated and large owners wallets are more distributed. Perhaps it averages out. I don't think bitcoin will somehow negate the laws of human interaction. BTC will flow from incompetent users to competent ones so concentration much like with other wealth is unavoidable.
|
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 01, 2013, 05:48:38 PM |
|
BTC will flow from incompetent users to competent ones so concentration much like with other wealth is unavoidable.
Incompetent needs a bit more defining, to me incompetent owners of Bitcoin lose them to the benefit of the network. My biggest fear is not selling but destroying my Bitcoins.
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
User705
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
|
|
November 01, 2013, 07:55:33 PM |
|
BTC will flow from incompetent users to competent ones so concentration much like with other wealth is unavoidable.
Incompetent needs a bit more defining, to me incompetent owners of Bitcoin lose them to the benefit of the network. My biggest fear is not selling but destroying my Bitcoins. That is a concern but they aren't really destroyed. And when I say incompetent an example would be someone buying an ASICMiner with BTC that won't ever earn that BTC back and those BTC flow to ASICMiner shareholders.
|
|
|
|
Melbustus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1004
|
|
November 01, 2013, 10:02:01 PM |
|
...I assume that anyone whose forum account is from 2011 or earlier, has BTC1,000-BTC10,000 unless proven otherwise...
Heh... That assumption needs revision, or at least further precision. There's a big difference in how many bitcoin new users likely obtained before and after May/June 2011. Keep in mind that bitcoin has a large learning curve, and there weren't many good resources for it at the time. It took time and diligence to understand the technology as well as the implications. Furthermore, obtaining bitcoin typically involved using services that one might not readily trust with all that much money (dwolla and gox were both pretty new without long reputations), so even people who studied enough to become uber-bulls probably scaled up purchases slowly starting in the $100 range, as they became comfortable with bitcoin services/processors. If you started that in Feb/March 2011, yeah, you could have 1000s of BTC. If you started that in July/Aug 2011, it would've taken a couple orders of magnitude more $ commitment to get into the 1000s of BTC territory; that's a very relevant distinction. With regard to mining, my own miscalculation on mining in 2011 was probably fairly common. Despite being tech-savvy, I concluded during summer 2011 that mining wasn't worth it, since the GPU-mining ecosystem was already pretty developed and pushing returns toward zero if you didn't *already* have the GPUs sitting around. So I, probably like many, hardly mined.
|
Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
|
|
|
molecular
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
|
|
November 01, 2013, 10:34:14 PM |
|
...I assume that anyone whose forum account is from 2011 or earlier, has BTC1,000-BTC10,000 unless proven otherwise...
Heh... That assumption needs revision, or at least further precision. There's a big difference in how many bitcoin new users likely obtained before and after May/June 2011. This is true. And even if you got in before May, you had to do it pretty decisively to acquire BTC 1000. It really was looking like an "online play money crypto experiment in some sort of bubble" and putting in $1000 took quite the insight and balls and/or stupidity really (unless you were wealthy and $1000 was irrelevant to you, which is unlikely for the kind of crowd bitcoin attracted at that time). I doubt a high percentage got in that "big". Most probably dropped 50 bucks or 200 on it. Only slowly scaling up when it was too late. It was all about mining with GPU back then and difficulty blasted anyone pretty much out of the game in May/June when the gamer-kids joined, selling for fiat on the spot and feeding the new breed: people that decided that buying was the better option and who had a little more play money. (Bitcoin was looking good all of a sudden and reached a lot more people). But by then BTC 1000 cost > $10,000 which was a bit hefty again for what it was back then to most (hacker-drug-money). So I'd go with something like BTC 100 to BTC 3,000 for people having joined in 2011, with heavy emphasis towards the former.
|
PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0 3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
|
|
|
|