Distribution of bitcoin wealth by owner

[rpietila]

$300 and below looks realistic. Wasn't that your prediction for the low rpietila?

I did not have the exact target, but as 400 is now reached, I think that was it. Don't think we go to 300 any more. There are many positive developments in Bitcoin. The most powerful force in the universe is exponential growth.

Regulation will come fast&furious now (see announcements from NY and Canada).

Agree. But you don't even know that there are remedies.

This could end up being like the fall of silver from $49 to $18 since 2011.

Silver is already rising, so the comparison is fitting

I see people writing it will be at $45,000 next year. So much irrational exuberance. Need capitulation first before a bottom.

This is the capitulation if you ask me.

[Vlad2Vlad]

The price is bound to test the old ATH.  ~270.  If that holds then it's really a bottom.

That's the feeling I have, breach $300 then bounce hard and fast off rock bottom $245-$275, and be back at $1,000 within 30 days.

At $300 I will borrow money to buy some BTC.  Total set-up, total steal.

[Pruden]

The price is bound to test the old ATH. [...].  If that holds then it's really a bottom.

That is sooooo 2013. And even then it was wrong.

[AnonyMint]

Yes Ethereum is one of the possible serious challengers to Bitcoin, and I've been aware of it for months behind the scenes. I am doubting the economics of how they tied their scripting into the mining. I fear it may be a fundamental flaw that could cause it to fail over time. Other than that, I think contracts changes everything in the crypto-currency paradigm.

Also IMHO Ethereum's planned IPO model for starting a currency is flawed.

In the meantime, I expect something better than Ethereum will come out. Hopefully with a better name too (Etherium.com is a game, what the heck does ether mean to the average person).

I hope I am wrong about Bitcoin crashing to $300 or below, because it would be much more positive for the ecosystem of serious altcoins. I guess rpietila moved his predicted bottom up because so much time has passed and the trendline is higher now?

We don't know how the manipulators of Mt.Gox want to play this. If they were satisfied with $400 or if they sense that is the most damage they can do in face of exponential demand, then its the bottom. Do they want coins or are they trying to create desire within the community for more regulation (thus willing to dump 750,000 coins warchest to create a panic)? Or perhaps the manipulation is chaotic and no party is in control, but that seems less likely given Mt.Gox is a centralized target.

Appears there is a "massive coverup", thus potentially dejection in the community once the truth finally comes out. It might turn out that government and banks have been in control over the past year or something really sinister.

What happens to Bitcoin price when the headlines for weeks or months are all about the massive fraud that was going on for over a year at the largest exchange and how until there is regulation we don't know if the other exchanges are also doing similarly. The masses are not going to want to buy this until there is FDIC insurance on deposits. This could cause projections to get downscaled.

Any way I will let the market tell me.

This government and bank inflicted fiasco has shown with strong likelihood that Bitcoin is not going to remain a decentralized currency. However that doesn't necessarily imply a lower price. Might grow faster with regulation and centralized control, especially until at least 2015 or so when the bail-ins (confiscations) start and regulation is instead seen more and more as a trap. For the moment, the masses are blissful frogs boiling in the pot.

On avoiding centralization:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355532.msg5248863#msg5248863

[AnonyMint]

Several more thoughts. If the TPTB have accumulated millions of coins (probably are Satoshi as well and thus own his 1 million coins), they control a poison pill. Just in case they can't destroy the anonymity and make it the ledger from hell, they control several means to kill it (law, majority of the float, etc).

The very wealthy are always controlled by the government, for they can't do anything without being tracked, due to their large size. The Winklevoss twin's stash is also effectively under the control of the government. For example, Warren Buffet has to toe the line because for one reason his insurance businesses need licenses from the governments.

What is excruciating ironic is that Bitcoin may actually grow stronger from more centralization of mining, exchanges, and coin ownership. Excruciating because there is no way to resolve the $150 trillion debt bubble that doesn't result in confiscating all traceable wealth (and I think that will include yours rpietila and especially your very traceable castle, sorry to say). And these charts show the model for this outcome is already underway. Trusting the government and the rule of collective law (a.k.a. socialism) is going to result in horrific failure. And this is not a decade from now. The financial and physical violence is breaking out now in Thailand, Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Brazil, Venezuela, etc.. By 2016ish, this will come to the core countries, such as the USA, France, etc..

This is a time where leaders such as Patrick Henry need to be bold. Rpietila as an astute, full-time trader lead me to Bitcoin. I am not focused on trading, rather am the thinker, the highly detailed technologist, the programmer, the conceptual iconoclast genius. He did his part to lead me here. Now will he know when to follow?

I explained why anarchy can never be as horrible as the end game outcomes of socialism.

Hey what happened to all the ignores on my name. Remember it was glowing in color a couple of months ago.  

[AnonyMint]

There is no way BTC goes to $1 million such that the holders of 100+ BTC go to $100 millionaires and maintain control over their wealth.

Society controls large wealth. This is why large wealth colludes to control government. Thus if that $1 million/BTC comes true, you BTC100 holders either become corrupt (join in the capture of the government) or you give up control of your wealth to the socialism.

Thus the goal of a more anonymous altcoin (since Bitcoin isn't anonymous at all) is not to make large holders anonymous, rather to make the small and medium holders anonymous. And thus large holders also can keep a small portion anonymous. This is their diversification, get of tax hell plan.

[FenixRD]

The real reason I don't worry too much about Bitcoin the brand, is because the tech is there. Decentralize all the things. Trustless money, trustless contracts, trustless, decentralized, disintermediated *everything*. If Bitcoin becomes NWOCoin (or whatever) we will still create our own future with other options. Oppression won't work. By 2030 or whenever, if a 1WG is being made, and it seems to be an oppressive one, people will leave this rock behind, too. The fascists and the immoral will always lag behind. While the real world isn't a Disney film, and there are no good guys or bad guys, just people that are mixtures of both to varying degrees... the world *is* like a Disney film in that, in the end, the good(er) guys win. There's nothing man can do that either surprises me, or makes me afraid. As I watch the slow triumph of good actors, though, I do occasionally get twinges of excitement.

My own mother, a devout Baptist, had the initial concern that Bitcoin will be part of the end-of-the-world regime prophesied in Revelations. I don't believe in that kind of thing, but my answer is the same regardless. If somehow, in a way I cannot immediately foresee, Bitcoin is appropriated by bad actors and becomes the thing she fears, it won't be by us; free men will trade whatever they please. We'll use another cryptocurrency, or several; a zerocoin or an anoncoin or whatever we need to be free. For now, Bitcoin looks like a good option. That can change, and so can the users. In the meantime, even assuming that outcome, a controlled Bitcoin is probably still freer and fairer and more transparent to all participants, than the existing system. So it's progress either way.

My mother now saves using Bitcoin, btw.

[BitChick]

The real reason I don't worry too much about Bitcoin the brand, is because the tech is there. Decentralize all the things. Trustless money, trustless contracts, trustless, decentralized, disintermediated *everything*. If Bitcoin becomes NWOCoin (or whatever) we will still create our own future with other options. Oppression won't work. By 2030 or whenever, if a 1WG is being made, and it seems to be an oppressive one, people will leave this rock behind, too. The fascists and the immoral will always lag behind. While the real world isn't a Disney film, and there are no good guys or bad guys, just people that are mixtures of both to varying degrees... the world *is* like a Disney film in that, in the end, the good(er) guys win. There's nothing man can do that either surprises me, or makes me afraid. As I watch the slow triumph of good actors, though, I do occasionally get twinges of excitement.

My own mother, a devout Baptist, had the initial concern that Bitcoin will be part of the end-of-the-world regime prophesied in Revelations. I don't believe in that kind of thing, but my answer is the same regardless. If somehow, in a way I cannot immediately foresee, Bitcoin is appropriated by bad actors and becomes the thing she fears, it won't be by us; free men will trade whatever they please. We'll use another cryptocurrency, or several; a zerocoin or an anoncoin or whatever we need to be free. For now, Bitcoin looks like a good option. That can change, and so can the users. In the meantime, even assuming that outcome, a controlled Bitcoin is probably still freer and fairer and more transparent to all participants, than the existing system. So it's progress either way.

My mother now saves using Bitcoin, btw.

I do believe Revelations and Bitcoin could very well be related, but indirectly.  Because Bitcoin has no centralized authority governments will have little control over the use of Bitcoin and may need to make drastic measures, such as put a barcode or QR code on our hands or foreheads to buy or sell so that they can keep track of who is buying and selling, but Bitcoin itself is not the problem.  It is always the GOVERNMENT! 

[User705]

There is no way BTC goes to $1 million such that the holders of 100+ BTC go to $100 millionaires and maintain control over their wealth.

Society controls large wealth. This is why large wealth colludes to control government. Thus if that $1 million/BTC comes true, you BTC100 holders either become corrupt (join in the capture of the government) or you give up control of your wealth to the socialism.

Thus the goal of a more anonymous altcoin (since Bitcoin isn't anonymous at all) is not to make large holders anonymous, rather to make the small and medium holders anonymous. And thus large holders also can keep a small portion anonymous. This is their diversification, get of tax hell plan.

Had the same mistaken belief a while ago.  Then saw how quickly most large holders were spending coins when price broke $1000 on all kinds of stuff.  Manors, Gold, Lambos.  If you own 100 XBT and the price becomes 100,000 per XBT you will not be holding it all in the hopes of $1million.  You will sell.

[lyth0s]

I'd like to see a February update on the distribution of bitcoins, especially after mt gox "losing" 750k. I'd specifically be interested to see if there are now fewer large wallets due to the initial panic selling etc

[Vlad2Vlad]

I'd like to see a February update on the distribution of bitcoins, especially after mt gox "losing" 750k. I'd specifically be interested to see if there are now fewer large wallets due to the initial panic selling etc

I think you'll see less larger wallets as the old school whales got taken out of the game.

And if I'm right and this was a bank/govt operation then they won't let all those coins sit in a few big wallets, that would be too obvious.

They would instead distribute all those coins over several hundred or even thousand wallets.  So I think you'll see fewer large wallets and quite a few more smaller wallets with hundreds to several thousand coins each.

The good news is that now since the smart money is in the game, we will get major media spin and massive pumps (and subsequent dumps) as they jockey for bigger and bigger positions.

[rpietila]

From the OP:

The intent of this thread is to find out and update the statistic on how bitcoins as investment/holdings are distributed according to the size of actual holding (note that this differs from the largest addresses -list).

You are all the time free to review the largest addresses. This thread is calculated using other metrics.

[AnonyMint]

I hope this post finally makes it go "Bingo!" in your minds.

The real reason I don't worry too much about Bitcoin the brand, is because the tech is there. Decentralize all the things. Trustless money, trustless contracts, trustless, decentralized, disintermediated *everything*.

Unfortunately Bitcoin doesn't do any of those things.

Mining and exchanges are already highly centralized.

We can see with the Mt.Gox outcome that the coin supply is shrinking and centralized into ownership by probably some head of the same "DEEP STATE" monster that controls the NSA (very reputable Bill Moyers interview at the linked post).

Bitcoin can't even handle real-time transactions so then we need VISA (Mastercoin) again and we are right back to centralization.

And trustless contracts are opcodes that the centralized developers have to enable one-by-one and most haven't been turned on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=490073.msg5401309#msg5401309

Hey all,

Posted just a few hours ago at The Hub. Jaws dropped when we received this for publication.

Article here: http://hub.playerauctions.com/bitcoin-mtgox-ryanstraus/

Content:
The Mt. Gox situation is troublesome for the bitcoin industry as it exists today. However, the situation presents a bigger problem for the bitcoin industry than it does for bitcoin itself.  After all, this story is not about the squandering of trust by one party or the need to restore the community’s trust in other parties.  Rather, this story is about the continued bastardization of Bitcoin through the injection of the question of trust into a protocol that was designed to function without it.

...

If Bitcoin becomes NWOCoin (or whatever) we will still create our own future with other options. Oppression won't work. By 2030 or whenever, if a 1WG is being made, and it seems to be an oppressive one, people will leave this rock behind, too.

We can't just expect those options to happen. We must actually make them happen.

50% of the population is not ready for the disruption of decentralization, as they will be unemployed (as predicted by Oxford that 47% will be replaced by computer automation). Thus a majority of the society will fighting for centralization and "we are the 99%, take it from the 1%" with Obama, Merkel, Hollande, etc leading the charge! Remember Obama said, "you didn't earn that without the government and society".

Google "life of the nobility in 1800s England" for example. The social structure had places for all, and this is being reintroduced. Any breach means [you lose your job].

A rich person without cooks and lawn keepers is the oddity, it's normal to have them.

You picked the wrong time period. Try again from 500 A.D. for about 600 years hence. The nobility had to live in heavily guarded castles to fend off the Robin Hoods.

That model works well after the chaos of the debt implosion when the social order can restabilize.

The problem right now is most of the population will be rendered unemployable, because there won't be enough rich to provide enough jobs for maids. And the computer automation will render the rest unemployed. Look at this for visual proof of what is coming at McDonalds (100% automation)!

Your IQ is too high to understand these things of simple life, you are 100% focused in your abstract concepts.

Somewhat true at times, but actually I lived in the Philippines during the Asian Crisis and saw what really happens during economic implosions. Even my eye was gouged out by one of those pissed off jobless. I saw kidnapping every where, even I had to be careful when driving my car outside the city boundary.

The fascists and the immoral will always lag behind. While the real world isn't a Disney film, and there are no good guys or bad guys, just people that are mixtures of both to varying degrees... the world *is* like a Disney film in that, in the end, the good(er) guys win. There's nothing man can do that either surprises me, or makes me afraid. As I watch the slow triumph of good actors, though, I do occasionally get twinges of excitement.

During debt collapse, they can do a lot of damage before they are wiped out. You have grown up in period of no chaos and world war, because we were borrowing $150 trillion to keep everyone appeased.

Now you will learn about reality. The history you refuse to believe existed or you don't think can ever happen again. You will learn the hard way I guess.

My own mother, a devout Baptist, had the initial concern that Bitcoin will be part of the end-of-the-world regime prophesied in Revelations. I don't believe in that kind of thing, but my answer is the same regardless. If somehow, in a way I cannot immediately foresee, Bitcoin is appropriated by bad actors and becomes the thing she fears, it won't be by us; free men will trade whatever they please. We'll use another cryptocurrency, or several; a zerocoin or an anoncoin or whatever we need to be free. For now, Bitcoin looks like a good option. That can change, and so can the users. In the meantime, even assuming that outcome, a controlled Bitcoin is probably still freer and fairer and more transparent to all participants, than the existing system. So it's progress either way.

My mother now saves using Bitcoin, btw.

We have to actually make the better Bitcoin. It won't just come by being closed-minded to the reality at-hand.

There is no way BTC goes to $1 million such that the holders of 100+ BTC go to $100 millionaires and maintain control over their wealth.

Society controls large wealth. This is why large wealth colludes to control government. Thus if that $1 million/BTC comes true, you BTC100 holders either become corrupt (join in the capture of the government) or you give up control of your wealth to the socialism.

Thus the goal of a more anonymous altcoin (since Bitcoin isn't anonymous at all) is not to make large holders anonymous, rather to make the small and medium holders anonymous. And thus large holders also can keep a small portion anonymous. This is their diversification, get of tax hell plan.

Had the same mistaken belief a while ago.  Then saw how quickly most large holders were spending coins when price broke $1000 on all kinds of stuff.  Manors, Gold, Lambos.  If you own 100 XBT and the price becomes 100,000 per XBT you will not be holding it all in the hopes of $1million.  You will sell.

My point is that the society will be dysfunctional due to debt collapse contagion with 50% technological unemployment. Thus being wealthy will mean the larger wealthy eat the smaller wealthy by employing the "99% versus 1%" political uprising.

Let's say I am wrong. Have you hedged just in case I am correct? Gold buried in the ground to collapse the velocity of money to help intensify a Dark Age?

How about an anonymous altcoin with superior features for decentralized everything in order to increase the velocity of money inspite of he dysfunctional social collapse?

[AnonyMint]

Serious problem for Bitcoin now:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486872.msg5407521#msg5407521

More:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486872.msg5408045#msg5408045

I hope readers can start to comprehend why coin taint is the most serious Achilles heel of Bitcoin.

On Friday, 2 BTC were stolen from me. I am considering reporting this to law enforcement. This means that anyone who receives BTC which derives from my stolen 2 BTC will be liable to return them back to me.

Perhaps the thief pushed them through a mixer such as Bigcoinfog.com

Thus that mixer will be liable to provide records. If it can't, then it will be liable for the 2 BTC.

So you can't you see you are playing with fire by mixing your coins through a centralized mixer.

And can't you see that without widespread anonymity (and decentralized mixers!), then crypto-currency is absolutely useless except to a government which wants a ledger from hell to track everything.

[rpietila]

How about you cease from now on posting these things to this thread. You have threads of your own to do it, and the interested ones (have to) be intelligent enough to find them, thank you for understanding!

[lunarboy]

February update

This would be a great idea now we know the extent of the Gox 744,400XBT (or more) I see the most likely scenario is extreme incompetence and that the keys are lost. It might be possible to do some detective work on accounts of a certain age and say similar numbers such as 10,000 btc if these coins turn out the be lost then that considerably changes your wealth distribution table.

edit: alot of good analysis going on in this thread   http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1z37zw/mt_gox_has_at_least_200k_btc/

[rpietila]

Is the distribution of gox accounts somehow different than the general distribution? Ideas?

[lyth0s]

From the OP:

The intent of this thread is to find out and update the statistic on how bitcoins as investment/holdings are distributed according to the size of actual holding (note that this differs from the largest addresses -list).

You are all the time free to review the largest addresses. This thread is calculated using other metrics.

When I said wallets I meant the largest owners of bitcoin, not necessarily the largest bitcoin addresses. Do you plan on running your metrics again soon? I would really like to know how the distribution of bitcoins has now changed after this mt gox event (due to people leaving/entering bitcoin). I would really like to be able to understand about how/if the distribution of bitcoin wealth changed after the whole mt gox event.

[lyth0s]

Is the distribution of gox accounts somehow different than the general distribution? Ideas?

My personal opinion is that the distribution of gox accounts would differ from the general distribution of bitcoins. A few reasons why I believe so:

1) US deposits/withdrawls were very difficult once they were restricted meaning that you take most of the US distribution of btc out of the picture
2) Mt Gox has been around for a very long time, meaning that early investors in bitcoin may have had very large bitcoin sums within their mt gox account
    --comparing that to lets say coinbase, which didn't come around until individual bitcoins were much more expensive and thus I'd bet that the total number of bitcoins held at CB or bought from CB and held in a personal wallet is less than those at mt gox

[rpietila]

Since the metrics are quite soft methods, lots of 'educated guesswork' will be involved in interpreting the fall of gox to the accounts. Besides, 1/3 most plausible scenarios still includes the goxcoins that are just seized by USGov. Another scenario is that the keys are temporarily lost but may be partially recovered. Only the 2011 thief/hack/ponzi scenario means that the coins were dispersed then, and double-accounted ever since.

Since we are talking "only" about 6% of the coins existing now, the impact is less drastic than you would think. Every month, the # of people in the categories changes by 10% to 100%.