3 ms·
> This is incorrect. Replace "miners" with "mining pools" and they're closer to the mark. It is correct. They are talking about miners not mining pools.
by Kbelicius 5y ago
> This is incorrect. Replace "miners" with "mining pools" and they're closer to the mark.
It is correct. They are talking about miners not mining pools.
- 3np 5y agoThanks for pointing that out and unfortunate that I misrepresented it, granted I didn’t read the article properly. As they note themselves it is a best-effort estimation based on publicly available data. Without digging into the data and methodology further, I’m assuming that they are probably at least in the right order of magnitude. One thing I’m noting is that they exclude ~70% of miners and assign ~30% as exchange miners (note that those two figures only coincidentally add up to 100%). One possible methodology error I can see (and again, further digging would have to be done to verify) is that exchanges often pool their user wallets together; it could be that for some exchange(s), they mistakenly lump together several users as one. Since their claimed concentration is very high, it should be feasible to look at the top 50-100 to cross-check. Would be awesome to get more research like this. Overall it’s an insightful article and the authors show great understanding.