4 ms·

Centralization of Bitcoin Wealth: 4% of addresses own 96% of Bitcoin

29 points by mbgaxyz 9y ago

DickingAround 9y ago
Haha. As if there was any realistic link between addresses and people. They're even designed to be one-time-use..
- setr 9y ago
  Wouldn't that imply we should see significantly less centralization than this? At the very least 4% holding 96% implies something isn't being used right..
mkwldbttr 9y ago
Author states that 1 address does not necessarily equals one person, but for some reason does this down in the article instead of an upfront disclaimer.
- sowbug 9y ago
  That's common knowledge, both for Bitcoin and elsewhere. How could any digital asset (Bitcoin, email account, social media account) guarantee a 1:1 mapping to humans?
sogen 9y ago
Is this a pie chart??
tpeo 9y ago
Jesus, who thought that chart was a good idea?
detaro 9y ago
Doesn't explain what set of addresses they actually looked at. All addresses ever in use? All addresses currently holding value? Also not sure what that's supposed to mean: > And that’s the issue. There’s only a very limited number of bitcoin wallet providers out there. Might be confusing exchanges and wallets?
- conception 9y ago
  You don't have to look at each address, you can just trace which addresses have been used through the block chain.
  - detaro 9y ago
    ... yes? It's still relevant and missing info which of the addresses that have been used they looked at.
thaytch 9y ago
Although the pie chart is a bit skewed because there are many exchanges that hold custody of coins in (multi-sig) cold storage, Bitcoin's distribution is not as dispersed as most would have liked it to be. That's largely because people were able to mine the currency in silence during 2009-10 where adoption and therefore difficulty were miniscule. I think one of the most annoying things people keep coming up with is doing airdrops for their altcoins based on the distribution to registered Bitcoin addresses. Byteball keeps doing this and therefore favors and privileges large Bitcoin holders. That's one of the most unfair ways to distribute a new cryptocurrency, especially for people that haven't had the privilege to have known about Bitcoin early.
Zarath 9y ago
This looks pretty bad, but I would like to see how it changes after subtracting Satoshi coins, exchanges, etc. I'm sure it still wouldn't be that great.
grwthckrmstr 9y ago
If this is even remotely representative of how Bitcoin wealth is distributed amongst individuals (not addresses)...
- marcofatica 9y ago
  It's not. Many addresses are single use
K0balt 9y ago
This article is an exercise in ignorance. Wallet providers? Does he not even understand the concept of personal wallets? Anybody that keeps a significant amount of money in a hosted wallet outside of specific circumstances (I. E. trading) is not only doing it wrong, they are being extremely foolish. And it looks like he's counting dust wallets and orphaned wallets. Maybe he should have learned something about the subject matter before writing an "authoratative" article.

29 points by mbgaxyz 9y ago

DickingAround 9y ago

Haha. As if there was any realistic link between addresses and people. They're even designed to be one-time-use..

setr 9y ago
Wouldn't that imply we should see significantly less centralization than this? At the very least 4% holding 96% implies something isn't being used right..

mkwldbttr 9y ago

Author states that 1 address does not necessarily equals one person, but for some reason does this down in the article instead of an upfront disclaimer.

sowbug 9y ago
That's common knowledge, both for Bitcoin and elsewhere. How could any digital asset (Bitcoin, email account, social media account) guarantee a 1:1 mapping to humans?

sogen 9y ago

Is this a pie chart??

tpeo 9y ago

Jesus, who thought that chart was a good idea?

detaro 9y ago

Doesn't explain what set of addresses they actually looked at. All addresses ever in use? All addresses currently holding value? Also not sure what that's supposed to mean: > And that’s the issue. There’s only a very limited number of bitcoin wallet providers out there. Might be confusing exchanges and wallets?

conception 9y ago
You don't have to look at each address, you can just trace which addresses have been used through the block chain.
- detaro 9y ago
  ... yes? It's still relevant and missing info which of the addresses that have been used they looked at.

thaytch 9y ago

Although the pie chart is a bit skewed because there are many exchanges that hold custody of coins in (multi-sig) cold storage, Bitcoin's distribution is not as dispersed as most would have liked it to be. That's largely because people were able to mine the currency in silence during 2009-10 where adoption and therefore difficulty were miniscule. I think one of the most annoying things people keep coming up with is doing airdrops for their altcoins based on the distribution to registered Bitcoin addresses. Byteball keeps doing this and therefore favors and privileges large Bitcoin holders. That's one of the most unfair ways to distribute a new cryptocurrency, especially for people that haven't had the privilege to have known about Bitcoin early.

Zarath 9y ago

This looks pretty bad, but I would like to see how it changes after subtracting Satoshi coins, exchanges, etc. I'm sure it still wouldn't be that great.

grwthckrmstr 9y ago

If this is even remotely representative of how Bitcoin wealth is distributed amongst individuals (not addresses)...

marcofatica 9y ago
It's not. Many addresses are single use

K0balt 9y ago

This article is an exercise in ignorance. Wallet providers? Does he not even understand the concept of personal wallets? Anybody that keeps a significant amount of money in a hosted wallet outside of specific circumstances (I. E. trading) is not only doing it wrong, they are being extremely foolish. And it looks like he's counting dust wallets and orphaned wallets. Maybe he should have learned something about the subject matter before writing an "authoratative" article.