Distribution of bitcoin wealth by owner

[molecular]

i think Multibit states that there are 250k active weekly wallet users.

That number seems rather high to me. How do they even measure it? Do you have a link to the source?

They count the number of distinct weekly pings of the running software checking for updates.

That's a sane way to do it. I'll accept that number into my worldview.

[jdough]

The new information is in the distribution parameters that were updated based on the Mt.Gox data.

The Mt.Gox leak was the data after accounts were frozen right? Considering there were many hints of Mt.Gox's impending failure well in advance (goxing was a verb a long time ago), I expect a large percentage of people withdrew their funds either completely or mostly (my case). Therefore, I am not sure how useful raw Mt.Gox numbers would be for finding the overall distribution.

[rpietila]

The new information is in the distribution parameters that were updated based on the Mt.Gox data.

The Mt.Gox leak was the data after accounts were frozen right? Considering there were many hints of Mt.Gox's impending failure well in advance (goxing was a verb a long time ago), I expect a large percentage of people withdrew their funds either completely or mostly (my case). Therefore, I am not sure how useful raw Mt.Gox numbers would be for finding the overall distribution.

20 pages back in this thread, when the methodology was created, we used the distribution data from a certain company called Silvervault as a basis for some assumptions of this model. Even impaired Mt.Gox data is an improvement. An example problem where we have better answer now, is:

1.0 million coins belong to people with 100-1000 coins
There are 45,000 people with 10-100 coins.

How many people own 100-1000 coins?

[dyask]

How about people that hold bitcoin indirectly through investments?   For exampe website/company could have 5000 BTC that actually belongs to hundreds of people.    This could range from crypto stocks to cloud mining power than can be sold for BTC.   I don't see how those kinds of people can be accounted for. 

[rpietila]

How about people that hold bitcoin indirectly through investments?   For exampe website/company could have 5000 BTC that actually belongs to hundreds of people.    This could range from crypto stocks to cloud mining power than can be sold for BTC.   I don't see how those kinds of people can be accounted for. 

Please read the 23 pages of this thread, especially 1-10.

[boumalo]

The new information is in the distribution parameters that were updated based on the Mt.Gox data.

The Mt.Gox leak was the data after accounts were frozen right? Considering there were many hints of Mt.Gox's impending failure well in advance (goxing was a verb a long time ago), I expect a large percentage of people withdrew their funds either completely or mostly (my case). Therefore, I am not sure how useful raw Mt.Gox numbers would be for finding the overall distribution.

20 pages back in this thread, when the methodology was created, we used the distribution data from a certain company called Silvervault as a basis for some assumptions of this model. Even impaired Mt.Gox data is an improvement. An example problem where we have better answer now, is:

1.0 million coins belong to people with 100-1000 coins
There are 45,000 people with 10-100 coins.

How many people own 100-1000 coins?

1million coins belong to people with 100-1000coins :

if they each have 100coins, they are 10,000
if they each have 1000coins, they are 1,000 so people having 100-1000coins are between 1000 and 10,000

Yet you wrote : 13k   BTC100-1k that would mean each person has less than 100coins

[rpietila]

The new information is in the distribution parameters that were updated based on the Mt.Gox data.

The Mt.Gox leak was the data after accounts were frozen right? Considering there were many hints of Mt.Gox's impending failure well in advance (goxing was a verb a long time ago), I expect a large percentage of people withdrew their funds either completely or mostly (my case). Therefore, I am not sure how useful raw Mt.Gox numbers would be for finding the overall distribution.

20 pages back in this thread, when the methodology was created, we used the distribution data from a certain company called Silvervault as a basis for some assumptions of this model. Even impaired Mt.Gox data is an improvement. An example problem where we have better answer now, is:

1.0 million coins belong to people with 100-1000 coins
There are 45,000 people with 10-100 coins.

How many people own 100-1000 coins?

1million coins belong to people with 100-1000coins :

if they each have 100coins, they are 10,000
if they each have 1000coins, they are 1,000 so people having 100-1000coins are between 1000 and 10,000

Yet you wrote : 13k   BTC100-1k that would mean each person has less than 100coins

Without fudging the numbers, you would guess too easily 

The problem above can actually be answered statistically, and much better with Mt.Gox data than without it.

[boumalo]

The new information is in the distribution parameters that were updated based on the Mt.Gox data.

The Mt.Gox leak was the data after accounts were frozen right? Considering there were many hints of Mt.Gox's impending failure well in advance (goxing was a verb a long time ago), I expect a large percentage of people withdrew their funds either completely or mostly (my case). Therefore, I am not sure how useful raw Mt.Gox numbers would be for finding the overall distribution.

20 pages back in this thread, when the methodology was created, we used the distribution data from a certain company called Silvervault as a basis for some assumptions of this model. Even impaired Mt.Gox data is an improvement. An example problem where we have better answer now, is:

1.0 million coins belong to people with 100-1000 coins
There are 45,000 people with 10-100 coins.

How many people own 100-1000 coins?

1million coins belong to people with 100-1000coins :

if they each have 100coins, they are 10,000
if they each have 1000coins, they are 1,000 so people having 100-1000coins are between 1000 and 10,000

Yet you wrote : 13k   BTC100-1k that would mean each person has less than 100coins

Without fudging the numbers, you would guess too easily  

The problem above can actually be answered statistically, and much better with Mt.Gox data than without it.

Hmm Do you mean you are fudging the numbers?

I just applied basic logic; would you elaborate? Maybe all numbers are approximative and you prefer to keep the numbers you find instead of changing them just to make them work together better

[rpietila]

Without fudging the numbers, you would guess too easily  

The problem above can actually be answered statistically, and much better with Mt.Gox data than without it.

Hmm Do you mean you are fudging the numbers?

I just applied basic logic; would you elaborate? Maybe all numbers are approximative and you prefer to keep the numbers you find instead of changing them just to make them work together better

Sorry. I meant that if I say Example, it means that the numbers are examples, and not actual numbers.

[wachtwoord]

Without fudging the numbers, you would guess too easily  

The problem above can actually be answered statistically, and much better with Mt.Gox data than without it.

Hmm Do you mean you are fudging the numbers?

I just applied basic logic; would you elaborate? Maybe all numbers are approximative and you prefer to keep the numbers you find instead of changing them just to make them work together better

Sorry. I meant that if I say Example, it means that the numbers are examples, and not actual numbers.

I don't understand what you mean either.

Scrolling back however (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.msg6337742#msg6337742) I see that the 13k people that own 100-1000 BTC own a total of 3.0 BTC. This is entirely between the lower and upper limit if 1.3M and 13M. So I don't understand boumalo's problem either

[rpietila]

Scrolling back however (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.msg6337742#msg6337742) I see that the 13k people that own 100-1000 BTC own a total of 3.0 BTC. This is entirely between the lower and upper limit if 1.3M and 13M. So I don't understand boumalo's problem either

Correct. This is my best estimate of the actual situation.

I don't understand what you mean either.

I try to explain my post below:

The new information is in the distribution parameters that were updated based on the Mt.Gox data.

The Mt.Gox leak was the data after accounts were frozen right? Considering there were many hints of Mt.Gox's impending failure well in advance (goxing was a verb a long time ago), I expect a large percentage of people withdrew their funds either completely or mostly (my case). Therefore, I am not sure how useful raw Mt.Gox numbers would be for finding the overall distribution.

20 pages back in this thread, when the methodology was created, we used the distribution data from a certain company called Silvervault as a basis for some assumptions of this model. Even impaired Mt.Gox data is an improvement. An example problem where we have better answer now, is:

1.0 million coins belong to people with 100-1000 coins
There are 45,000 people with 10-100 coins.

How many people own 100-1000 coins?

The bolded part is what the words "example problem" (above) refer to. It is a riddle, which is used as an example. I have given two statements which are assumed to be true, and one question, which the reader must answer (but cannot, as from his point of view, there is not enough hints). At face value it does not have anything to do with the real thing (it is an example, remember), but what it illustrates is the "new information" that we found in Mt.Gox leak.

I totally lack terminology to explain what this info is, but it can help us know the average of coins per holder in each of the brackets. Previously we had only 46 people with 10k+ coins, now this number is 70 due to this more accurate parameter. This is a great improvement in accuracy.

[boumalo]

Ok fair enough

THis work is very interesting

[keithers]

Scrolling back however (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.msg6337742#msg6337742) I see that the 13k people that own 100-1000 BTC own a total of 3.0 BTC. This is entirely between the lower and upper limit if 1.3M and 13M. So I don't understand boumalo's problem either

Correct. This is my best estimate of the actual situation.

I don't understand what you mean either.

I try to explain my post below:

The new information is in the distribution parameters that were updated based on the Mt.Gox data.

The Mt.Gox leak was the data after accounts were frozen right? Considering there were many hints of Mt.Gox's impending failure well in advance (goxing was a verb a long time ago), I expect a large percentage of people withdrew their funds either completely or mostly (my case). Therefore, I am not sure how useful raw Mt.Gox numbers would be for finding the overall distribution.

20 pages back in this thread, when the methodology was created, we used the distribution data from a certain company called Silvervault as a basis for some assumptions of this model. Even impaired Mt.Gox data is an improvement. An example problem where we have better answer now, is:

1.0 million coins belong to people with 100-1000 coins
There are 45,000 people with 10-100 coins.

How many people own 100-1000 coins?

The bolded part is what the words "example problem" (above) refer to. It is a riddle, which is used as an example. I have given two statements which are assumed to be true, and one question, which the reader must answer (but cannot, as from his point of view, there is not enough hints). At face value it does not have anything to do with the real thing (it is an example, remember), but what it illustrates is the "new information" that we found in Mt.Gox leak.

I totally lack terminology to explain what this info is, but it can help us know the average of coins per holder in each of the brackets. Previously we had only 46 people with 10k+ coins, now this number is 70 due to this more accurate parameter. This is a great improvement in accuracy.

Thanks for this. Are you able to estimate how many people are in the 10-25 and 25-50 BTC ranges?

[left-ca]

nice analysis!

[rpietila]

Finally some altcoins release easy-to-digest Richlist data.

22 largest addresses own 50%+ of HoboNickels.

With Bitcoin, you need about 1,400 owners (with all their addresses), to get 50%+.

[Cablez]

With Bitcoin, you need about 1,400 owners (with all their addresses), to get 50%+.

Does that include Satoshi?

[Vlad2Vlad]

Finally some altcoins release easy-to-digest Richlist data.

22 largest addresses own 50%+ of HoboNickels.

With Bitcoin, you need about 1,400 owners (with all their addresses), to get 50%+.

Banks, Corps and Hedge Funds are buying hand over fist right now.

Expect a massive change in direction and management of Bitcoin before hear's end.

Bitcoin millionaires should have a contingency plan as more and more of the old guard foundation board is forced out and replaced by bank/govt puppets.

3 main guys are out in less than 3 months. 

Not a coincidence.

[rpietila]

Finally some altcoins release easy-to-digest Richlist data.

22 largest addresses own 50%+ of HoboNickels.

With Bitcoin, you need about 1,400 owners (with all their addresses), to get 50%+.

Banks, Corps and Hedge Funds are buying hand over fist right now.

Expect a massive change in direction and management of Bitcoin before hear's end.

Bitcoin millionaires should have a contingency plan as more and more of the old guard foundation board is forced out and replaced by bank/govt puppets.

3 main guys are out in less than 3 months. 

Not a coincidence.

Yes, I am aware of these developments.

- "Hand over fist" is wrong expression, because if there were even the slightest frontrunning tendency, the price would have turned UP by now.

- What kind of "contingency measures" you suggest?

- Ousting BF board members and replacing them with bank puppets is not a big deal because supernodes have regarded BF as a bankster entity since the beginning, and illegitimate BF has no power over anything.

- I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Trust me, Bankers will own over 25%+ of Bitcoin by this Christmas and over 50% in the next 18 months.

I said last year Wall-Street was gonna come in strong this year and I was laughed at.

I traded stocks for over 20 years.  When bankers accumulate a stock, no matter how massive the accumulation, the price doesn't always go up, it actually often goes down.

How is that possible?  Manipulation.  Between the Media, constant China banning (which is all preplanned and I called it some 3 months ago) and clever ways to accumulate Bitcoins, bankers will get the coins they want THIS YEAR.

We will know this for a fact as banks and hedge funds have to report new investments quarterly.  I have no doubt we will see that they bought Bitcoins, hand over fist, this entire downturn.  And this is just a hunch but I think they grabbed a lot of the coins from Gox, although I don't know how.  Wall Street is untouchable when it comes to their survival [and annihilating opponents] and it was clear to me last year that Andreas et al were wrong; Banks and governments actually LOVED Bitcoin.

My 25%+ target should actually be reached well before Christmas and that will cause some panic in the libertarian circles, which is a large portion of the current Bitcoin holders.

And that's why I said Bitcoin incumbents and Millionaires should have a contingency plan.  

I expect a mass migration to a new coin sparked by a respected Bitcoin insider.  They may first try a Newly launched coin but that will probably fail.

An already tested and ultra secure coin will probably prove to be the best choice.  This may already be planned, hard to say with so much going on behind the scenes.  It would only take the move of one high profile and trusted individual, like Gavin, to create a mass exodus from Bitcoin to a different "decentralized" coin. [No successful coin will ever be decentralized, that's not how/why they were designed].

Bitcoin will see at least a $2,000 price this year.  I've said it before:  All the money and power in the world has converged to one massive focal point to make the Bitcoin protocol a success and Bitcoin will not be allowed to fail, at least not until cryptos reach critical mass.

Critical mass, the point where Groupthink takes over, won't happen for at least 18 more months and also, given the mass amount of SmartMoney going into Bitcoin, it's guaranteed to go much higher later this year, and especially next year.  Due to The sheer illiquid nature of Bitcoin and lack of available coins, even if a mass migration happens, there will still be a massive shortage of Bitcoins to go Around and Wall Street is very good at increasing perceived value of an asset, especially a rare asset.

The media will jump in and make the masses go nuts for Bitcoin [and a few other select alts].

Throw in the guaranteed ETF license [by year's end, as i predicted last year] and you'll see a massive influx of billions of dollars by next year from mutual funds and pension funds.  This is why the SmartMoney is hurrying to buy Bitcoin hand over fist now, those in early will see the most massive profits later this year and especially next year, when Mutual Funds And Pension Funds throw billions into Bitcoin ETFs [which will overcrowd buyers and demand will spill-over into alts].

So the contingency plan is not for profits sake, although one can make much more buying select alts, but rather for the reason Bitcoiners bought into Bitcoin in the first place.  For financial freedom and decentralized money.  

That will be gone by year's end and even Andreas will stop telling lies on TV.  So Bitcoin millionaires should get together and figure out where the masses will migrate to once it's obvious Bitcoin is not decentralized and worse, it's ran by banks, Corporations, hedge funds and maybe even the NSA.  

Cause besides the huge profits one can make by finding that coin now, one can also position oneself strategically to try and slow down another systemic hi-jacking like what's happening now with Bitcoin.

This hi-jacking was obvious from last year but nobody was listening and unfortunately, even a new coin, if it succeeds, will see a takeover attempt.

But it's fun to try and stop them, and maybe have a little bit of financial success while doing it.

Thanks and Good luck!

[Siegfried]

Trust me, Bankers will own over 25%+ of Bitcoin by this Christmas and over 50% in the next 18 months.

I said last year Wall-Street was gonna come in strong this year and I was laughed at.

I traded stocks for over 20 years.  When bankers accumulate a stock, no matter how massive the accumulation, the price doesn't always go up, it actually often goes down.

How is that possible?  Manipulation.  Between the Media, constant China banning (which is all preplanned and I called it some 3 months ago) and clever ways to accumulate Bitcoins, bankers will get the coins they want THIS YEAR.

We will know this for a fact as banks and hedge funds have to report new investments quarterly.  I have no doubt we will see that they bought Bitcoins, hand over fist, this entire downturn.  And this is just a hunch but I think they grabbed a lot of the coins from Gox, although I don't know how.  Wall Street is untouchable when it comes to their survival [and annihilating opponents] and it was clear to me last year that Andreas et al were wrong; Banks and governments actually LOVED Bitcoin.

My 25%+ target should actually be reached well before Christmas and that will cause some panic in the libertarian circles, which is a large portion of the current Bitcoin holders.

And that's why I said Bitcoin incumbents and Millionaires should have a contingency plan.  

I expect a mass migration to a new coin sparked by a respected Bitcoin insider.  They may first try a Newly launched coin but that will probably fail.

An already tested and ultra secure coin will probably prove to be the best choice.  This may already be planned, hard to say with so much going on behind the scenes.  It would only take the move of one high profile and trusted individual, like Gavin, to create a mass exodus from Bitcoin to a different "decentralized" coin. [No successful coin will ever be decentralized, that's not how/why they were designed].

Bitcoin will see at least a $2,000 price this year.  I've said it before:  All the money and power in the world has converged to one massive focal point to make the Bitcoin protocol a success and Bitcoin will not be allowed to fail, at least not until cryptos reach critical mass.

Critical mass, the point where Groupthink takes over, won't happen for at least 18 more months and also, given the mass amount of SmartMoney going into Bitcoin, it's guaranteed to go much higher later this year, and especially next year.  Due to The sheer illiquid nature of Bitcoin and lack of available coins, even if a mass migration happens, there will still be a massive shortage of Bitcoins to go Around and Wall Street is very good at increasing perceived value of an asset, especially a rare asset.

The media will jump in and make the masses go nuts for Bitcoin [and a few other select alts].

Throw in the guaranteed ETF license [by year's end, as i predicted last year] and you'll see a massive influx of billions of dollars by next year from mutual funds and pension funds.  This is why the SmartMoney is hurrying to buy Bitcoin hand over fist now, those in early will see the most massive profits later this year and especially next year, when Mutual Funds And Pension Funds throw billions into Bitcoin ETFs [which will overcrowd buyers and demand will spill-over into alts].

So the contingency plan is not for profits sake, although one can make much more buying select alts, but rather for the reason Bitcoiners bought into Bitcoin in the first place.  For financial freedom and decentralized money.  

That will be gone by year's end and even Andreas will stop telling lies on TV.  So Bitcoin millionaires should get together and figure out where the masses will migrate to once it's obvious Bitcoin is not decentralized and worse, it's ran by banks, Corporations, hedge funds and maybe even the NSA.  

Cause besides the huge profits one can make by finding that coin now, one can also position oneself strategically to try and slow down another systemic hi-jacking like what's happening now with Bitcoin.

This hi-jacking was obvious from last year but nobody was listening and unfortunately, even a new coin, if it succeeds, will see a takeover attempt.

But it's fun to try and stop them, and maybe have a little bit of financial success while doing it.

Thanks and Good luck!

I hope you will be kind enough to let us know when you find that coin.