Bitcoin's usage spread

[miztaziggy]

Does anyone know if there's a way to measure how Bitcoin is spread out currently?

I mean this in terms of numbers of users with coins. This doesn't mean to show how Bitcoins are spread among various public addresses, but how they're spread among unique users.

If it could be measured, it would be a useful index of how Bitcoin is spreading and becoming 'mainstream' or not.

Eg.

When bitcoin was first created, it would have looked like this:



Currently, maybe it looks like this:



When it's truly become what everyone thinks it could be it may well look like this:



Perhaps it may look more like the wealth distribution graph:

[1715053810]

1715053810

[1715053810]

1715053810

[1715053810]

1715053810

[LiteCoinGuy]

personally i think 10 - 100k in some years could be possible.

[Skrillex]

10K is not obvious, it's OBLIGATORY, it only depends on the adoption level, BTC price is math: more adoption, higher price.

[Elwar]

There have been charts including this one by MIT:

[blatchcorn]

Do you what data MIT included and excluded in this study?

[MrBtcSenior]

I thought that the unspent bitcoins would have been higher in the last years but I was wrong of course.

[truehold3r]

In 2009 you couldn't buy almost anything with bitcoin so they remained unspent.

[Elwar]

Do you what data MIT included and excluded in this study?

Here is the coindesk article on the study:

http://www.coindesk.com/mit-report-bitcoin-more-likely-spent-hoarded/

[dankkk]

There have been charts including this one by MIT:

I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs.

Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address.

[Winner]

There have been charts including this one by MIT:

I wonder how much people are holding in 2014...

In 2013 it looks like it increased the amount of users with unspent bitcoins

[Snorek]

It is simple, bitcoin is getting more popular. And we get more way to spentit so people are just using it just like normal currencies in real world. Nothing special about it, just simple evolution.

[Victoo]

BTC ATMs are getting opened at many places so there is a big chance of a fast users growth soon.

[johncarpe64]

Do you what data MIT included and excluded in this study?

Here is the coindesk article on the study:

http://www.coindesk.com/mit-report-bitcoin-more-likely-spent-hoarded/

I think this study is flawed. As mentioned above, most people mine via pools today and most pools do not payout directly into a miner's address, but rather mine into a central pool address and subsequently transfer the mined bitcoin into the miner's address.

It would be much more accurate if the study were to attempt to follow the outputs and look at the number of TXs that inputs are associated with. This would likely be a much better representation if the mined coins are actually sold or not.

[asdlolciterquit]

this thread make me ask a technical question:

is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? 

[lihuajkl]

this thread make me ask a technical question:

is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? 

Not been found yet. But it is nearly impossible.

[QuestionAuthority]

There have been charts including this one by MIT:

I think the reason for this change is that people are now spending a lot more to mine bitcoin. As a result they will have bigger bills to pay that they need to sell their mined bitcoin for. In 2009 for example it almost wouldn't even be worth someone's time to sell their mined bitcoin to cover their electric costs.

Another likely reason is the fact that most miners use pools to mine. As a result (with the exception of eligius), the found block will have the block subsidy "deposited" into the pool address, and when it is time to pay the miners the reward will be transferred to the miner's address.

Bravo! I've been seeing that graph posted for a while now and you are the only one that actually realizes what's going on. The reason an outside entity like MIT can't just grab the Blockchain and start analyzing transactions is because they really don't know how Bitcoin works or have any involvement in the community of users. It was probably some grad students class paper and he was "guided" (and I'm using the term loosely) by an even more clueless professor.

[DannyHamilton]

this thread make me ask a technical question:

is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? 

It's not possible to know for certain, but it is possible to make an educated guess that there is a strong likelihood of two addresses being under the control of the same person (or company).

In order to spend bitcoins that have been received at an address, those bitcoins must be used as an input into a transaction.  Then the transaction must be signed using the private key that is associated with the address.

If bitcoins from two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction, then there is a very high likelihood that the same person owns both addresses since the transaction needs signatures from the private keys of both addresses.

[asdlolciterquit]

this thread make me ask a technical question:

is it possible to know if 2 or more addresses are used from the same person? And, if so, how? 

It's not possible to know for certain, but it is possible to make an educated guess that there is a strong likelihood of two addresses being under the control of the same person (or company).

In order to spend bitcoins that have been received at an address, those bitcoins must be used as an input into a transaction.  Then the transaction must be signed using the private key that is associated with the address.

If bitcoins from two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction, then there is a very high likelihood that the same person owns both addresses since the transaction needs signatures from the private keys of both addresses.

thanks for this reply, it's very usefull.

Just one think, that maybe is very simple but i don't understand: in which case "two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction"?

[2double0]

personally i think 10 - 100k in some years could be possible.

Maybe like 20 years id say

[DannyHamilton]

Just one think, that maybe is very simple but i don't understand: in which case "two different addresses are both used as inputs into the same transaction"?

Here is an example:
https://blockchain.info/tx/0dc6416fc7c2db6167212bc50a6d3d940c3d40d1e3a4067b9194ae45256c6cae

In that transaction we see that the spender spent 0.0020125 BTC that were previously received at 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 0.00022488 BTC that were previously received at 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ.

Since, in order to be valid, this transaction must have signatures from the private keys that are associated with BOTH of those addresses, we can say that it is very likely that both 1MxwKaCRWQnVseef7K8K93HgV6dr1dtSdP and 1AiWaZrV1ge1twKZUXHSb2WMThWEPaTeaZ are under the control of the same person (or company).