Distribution of bitcoin wealth by owner

[Rassah]

The wealthy will inherit the Earth!

Why inherit, when you can just buy it 

[1715058033]

1715058033

[wachtwoord]

I like your posts so much man. Claiming you only need 5 BTC to be in the top 29,000 people

The wealthy will inherit the Earth!

Wasn't it your link in the first place?? I just recompiled the information.. 

It was. Nice to see it expressed in absolute numbers though. You should add that this is about net worth though and even if Bitcoin "takes over" people will continue to own have some sort of other valuables as long as we are corporal

[User705]

We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.

That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins.  LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later.  The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap.  Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC.

Actually if you read it, altcoins were included. An altcoin with 10-20% premine won't fly tho.

It doesn't need to be premised to retain 10-20%.  Bitcoin is infinitely duplicatable and more copies are bound to keep coming up as bitcoin keeps growing.  Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

[Rassah]

We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.

That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins.  LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later.  The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap.  Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC.

Actually if you read it, altcoins were included. An altcoin with 10-20% premine won't fly tho.

It doesn't need to be premised to retain 10-20%.  Bitcoin is infinitely duplicatable and more copies are bound to keep coming up as bitcoin keeps growing.  Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

That ignored the network effect, which not only involved users and vendors, but also all the top developers and security experts. In other words, there is a higher risk of something going wrong with currencies other than bitcoin.

[FiatKiller]

I find this thread very encouraging. I used to think I was late to the game not having accumulated coin prior to the ASIC revolution, but seeing that I am in the top 100K of holders worldwide is not bad at all. Planning on hording for sure now. I was converting some into silver, and wish I had those bitcoins now. Live and learn!

[Tirapon]

We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.

That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins.  LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later.  The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap.  Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC.

Actually LTC is at 8% of Bitcoin as there is a 4 time larger supply. I kinda think it's overpriced.

LTC market cap is $350 million, BTC is $10 billion. There are currently twice as many LTC as BTC, of course that ratio will change due to LTC having faster block rewards. If LTC were to capture 10% of BTC market share at this point, for a total cap of $1 billion, then price would be $40.

[wachtwoord]

We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.

That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins.  LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later.  The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap.  Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC.

Actually LTC is at 8% of Bitcoin as there is a 4 time larger supply. I kinda think it's overpriced.

LTC market cap is $350 million, BTC is $10 billion. There are currently twice as many LTC as BTC, of course that ratio will change due to LTC having faster block rewards. If LTC were to capture 10% of BTC market share at this point, for a total cap of $1 billion, then price would be $40.

21 M : 84 M
1 : 4

It's not that important how many there are right now. Total supply is vastly more influential.

[User705]

We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.

That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins.  LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later.  The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap.  Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC.

Actually if you read it, altcoins were included. An altcoin with 10-20% premine won't fly tho.

It doesn't need to be premised to retain 10-20%.  Bitcoin is infinitely duplicatable and more copies are bound to keep coming up as bitcoin keeps growing.  Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

That ignored the network effect, which not only involved users and vendors, but also all the top developers and security experts. In other words, there is a higher risk of something going wrong with currencies other than bitcoin.

That only effects coins that deviate greatly from bitcoin.  A 1for1 copy has exactly the same risks as bitcoin.  Network effect is an issue but again we are nowhere near mass adoption.  How well did network effect help MySpace vs Facebook.

[Tirapon]

We are so far from mass adoption that it is not even funny.

That's very true. But I think you need to account for alt coins.  LTC is at 2% of BTC now and who knows where it will be later.  The more widespread BTC becomes there more widespread other alt coins become so it isn't really 21million coin cap.  Someone who starts a popular alt coin and retains 10-20% might equate to 1% of BTC.

Actually LTC is at 8% of Bitcoin as there is a 4 time larger supply. I kinda think it's overpriced.

LTC market cap is $350 million, BTC is $10 billion. There are currently twice as many LTC as BTC, of course that ratio will change due to LTC having faster block rewards. If LTC were to capture 10% of BTC market share at this point, for a total cap of $1 billion, then price would be $40.

21 M : 84 M
1 : 4

It's not that important how many there are right now. Total supply is vastly more influential.

Total supply of LTC right now is 24 M. Another 60 M are yet to be mined. BTC total supply is 12 M right now, hence market cap of 10 Billion rather than 20 Billion.

That is your opinion. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree

That's not an opinion, those are facts. The part which is opinion is whether or not it is current supply or eventual supply that matters. I say current supply is what matters, because you can't buy coins which are yet to be mined, and applying my basic understanding of supply and demand to the equation leads me to believe that price depends on what is currently available on the market.

I realise that it is more complicated than this, and I am over simplifying. But it is also an over simplification to state that LTC has a future supply of 84 M while BTC has a future supply of 21 M, therefore LTC market cap is 4x higher.

No the fact is that the market cap of Bitcoin is 21M*975 = $20.475B. That coins have not been assigned to individuals yet don't mean they don't exist. I was trying to word this nicer to you before

I don't know of anyone else working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mined do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.

[wachtwoord]

I don't know of anyone working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mind do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.

Few people are doing this yes. Most people are wrong. Claiming that most people don't do something is not an argument that it is wrong. Most people don't believe in Bitcoin for one

It is 100% certain these coins will be assigned to people and therefore they exist. It is really not more complicated than that.

[User705]

I don't know of anyone working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mind do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.

Few people are doing this yes. Most people are wrong. Claiming that most people don't do something is not an argument that it is wrong. Most people don't believe in Bitcoin for one

It is 100% certain these coins will be assigned to people and therefore they exist. It is really not more complicated than that.

You're 100% certain of an event 100 years away.

[wachtwoord]

I don't know of anyone working out market cap in that way. Every other source I read puts BTC market cap at 10 billion right now, by calculating current price multiplied by current supply. And I would even go so far as to suggest that coins which haven't been mind do not in fact exist... yet. Now there's a crazy notion.

Few people are doing this yes. Most people are wrong. Claiming that most people don't do something is not an argument that it is wrong. Most people don't believe in Bitcoin for one

It is 100% certain these coins will be assigned to people and therefore they exist. It is really not more complicated than that.

By your logic, price would not be affected if 9 million BTC were mined overnight, because actually they already exist. It is in fact quite a lot more complicated than that. Price is a function of many variables, and knowing the eventual supply does of course affect the perceived value to some extent, but the available supply right now is not 21 Million BTC / 84 Million LTC etc. Market cap tells us about the total value of coins which are currently in circulation, and can be used to make some very basic comparisons.

I'm happy to admit that I haven't studied economics and don't know the best way to calculate these things. You're method seems strange though, to consider the existence of something in the present simply because it is known that it will exist in the future.

No it already exists but has not been distributed yet. Like a warehouse with all the pre-printed Dollar bills for eternity.

[AnonyMint]

Let us assume that Bitcoin has completely taken over as a currency, and is now used worldwide. Because the emergence of Bitcoin has made commerce boom, the world GDP has grown such that bitcoins alone account for as much value as the physical and financial world did in 2012.

The world uses other methods for everyday payments. Bitcoins themselves are used for large transactions only and a measured in units of mBTC. The wealth is distributed in a similar way as in the article, but to quite different people.


In this order,
* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.


Even if you find it hard to believe the dollar part, the number of bitcoins existing is still constant, and will likely be distributed quite exactly according to the table above, when the initial distribution period is completed and bitcoins are used everywhere.

I have disagreed as to whether this distribution can be attained at the postulated high level of share of world wealth.

[rpietila]

Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.

I, for one, am boycotting altcoins, despite the gains that might be achievable. Central banks and their cronies are boycotting all cryptos.

People in the position of power do not need to diversify for reasons of security or gain, they only diversify to retain their power.

...which may be Bitcoin's(crypto's) greatest strength that possibly the CB:s were in boycott mode for too long.

[vokain]

Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.

I, for one, am boycotting altcoins, despite the gains that might be achievable. Central banks and their cronies are boycotting all cryptos.

People in the position of power do not need to diversify for reasons of security or gain, they only diversify to retain their power.

...which may be Bitcoin's(crypto's) greatest strength that possibly the CB:s were in boycott mode for too long.

I, for one, see it as a market fork. Why join the smaller market if the underlying protocol is not practically different? It means altcoins are less useful. I think this tendency with networking effects and first mover advantage will win out in the long run.

[AnonyMint]

Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.

Large holders can't diversify. If they put a few % in an altcoin, they can't on a risk-weighted basis catch up to their 9x% even if it grows slower. If they diversify too much percent, they are not being risk-adverse.

Big capital is always blind to smaller opportunities (what I figuratively referred to as "dumb"), because it has to be. This is why won't see Richard Branson investing seriously in Bitcoin.

[User705]

Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.

I, for one, am boycotting altcoins, despite the gains that might be achievable. Central banks and their cronies are boycotting all cryptos.

People in the position of power do not need to diversify for reasons of security or gain, they only diversify to retain their power.

...which may be Bitcoin's(crypto's) greatest strength that possibly the CB:s were in boycott mode for too long.

Perhaps I don't understand large holders or perhaps you as one of the large holders are projecting your biases thinking you know what other large holders think.  Who knows?  Bitcoin is a great idea perhaps even the greatest monetary idea of our time but it's execution isn't infallible.  To think that only bitcoin will survive the test of time is kinda like thinking only gold will last forever as money.  Both ideas being very closed minded.  Bitcoin has no power in itself, it's just a tool.  Power has and always will be violence and the willingness to use it.  Central banks and their cronies don't need to accept or boycott cryptos they have a well oiled power machine behind them already.  One of bitcoin's/crypto's greatest strength is when the time for violence rolls around they are very resistant to it.  It's not like other possessions which can be physically taken.

[rpietila]

* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.

To corner your share of the world's bitcoins, I suggest a simple top-down approach: Decide, Buy, Wait, Profit -model.
(A more complicated bottom-up approach is the topic of this thread.)

- Decide, which of the levels above suits your preferred lifestyle.
- Buy 10 times the number of bitcoins necessary (to allow for divestment, spend, gifts, loss, theft, tax etc.)
- Wait.
- Profit.

For example if you are currently "upper middle class", and want to gain a level, you need minimum 50mBTC. By buying half a bitcoin for about $500, you are neither in any danger of losing out on Bitcoin's appreciation, nor suffer disproportionately if Bitcoin fails.

[wachtwoord]

* the top 29,000 people would have 5,000mBTC or more, a huge fortune comparable to 100 million of today's dollars.
* the top 1 million people would have 500mBTC or more, corresponding to 10 million or more dollars
* 29 million people have at least 50mBTC, which puts them among the most affluent 0.6%, previously called 'millionaires'
* the upper middle class of 350 million people worldwide, owns 5mBTC or more
* lower middle class consists of 1 billion people is characterized by ownership of 0.5mBTC or more
* the lower class of (3+ billion) owns less than 0.5mBTC including people who don't have any or have negative worth.

To corner your share of the world's bitcoins, I suggest a simple top-down approach: Decide, Buy, Wait, Profit -model.
(A more complicated bottom-up approach is the topic of this thread.)

- Decide, which of the levels above suits your preferred lifestyle.
- Buy 10 times the number of bitcoins necessary (to allow for divestment, spend, gifts, loss, theft, tax etc.)
- Wait.
- Profit.

For example if you are currently "upper middle class", and want to gain a level, you need minimum 50mBTC. By buying half a bitcoin for about $500, you are neither in any danger of losing out on Bitcoin's appreciation, nor suffer disproportionately if Bitcoin fails.

So, in effect, you are advocating everyone to sell everything they own above 50,000 mBTC

[Rassah]

Adverse - preventing success or development; harmful; unfavorable.

Risk adverse - preventing success of risk... Um...  Did AnonyMint mean risk averse?

As a large holder and/or someone who knows large holders very well, I can tell you that rpietila is correct. We don't like altcoins, and are boycotting them. I don't know other's reasons, but my personal one range from wanting to secure my position and seeing altcoins as a that, to being risk averse with my wealth, and believing altcoins are much much more risky than Bitcoin. I don't need to speculate on currency that may crash and disappear within a month, since I already have a money position, so I see people investing in altcoins as wishful "me too" types who think they missed out on being early adopters.

Mostly, I just haven't seen any benefits in any other altcoins. I own Namecoins, but only for the purposes of buying and managing domain names.