Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richest Bitcoin Addresses

bitcoinrichlist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 208 posts

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#111

Post by Moral_ »

MSM wrote: post #78
chrisacky wrote: post #23

Can you imagine how many of these BTCs are actually lost forever. Look at this address: http://bitcoinrichlist.com/address/198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5... The last time this address was touched was 2009, and has an even 8,000 coins (back in the day, this only amounted to 320 mined blocks. You could do that in what?... a few hours/half days?[1]) The owner probably ran his system for a few hours, collected 8000 coins, tho…

Way smaller scale but back in 2011 I heard about bitcoins and crunched some numbers. I realized that at the current price (~$16), I was able to make profit mining them on my desktop since it would only cost about ~$12 in electricty per coin. I got myself 3 or 4 coins (I wasn't even in a pool at that point) but then the price crashed in late 2011 and I eventually forgot about it. Since then I've reformatted and I reme…

How do you get 3 or 4 coins if you aren't in a pool, that's impossible.

If you aren't in a pool the only way to get coins is to solve the block and in that case you would have had 50.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#112

Post by JohnTHaller »

mcherm wrote: post #100
skriticos2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If you delete the wallet, the contained Bitcoins make poof . You basically delete the private key and won't be able to sign a transaction with it ever.

It's like what happens when your wallet gets burned in a fire. That cash is gone forever.

Correct. Except most of us don't keep all our money in our wallet or under our mattress. We keep it in a bank. Which is insured by the federal government. Bitcoin is akin to keeping all your money in a big bag in a single location if you don't back it your digital wallet offsite.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#113

Post by josephagoss »

Torn wrote: post #92
josephagoss wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands of separate addresses, most of those coins still sit in their mined blocks. However it is likely Satoshi has all the addresses in one single wallet so that he could move them all at once if he wanted to. Satoshi's estimated wealth is between 500,000 and 1,000,000 coins.

1,000,000 coins is ~10x the top person in that rich list i.e. 840 million USD going by that page's prices

Yeah, right now Satoshi is worth at least 100k btc up to 1,000k btc. Some analyses has found that perhaps 2,500k btc are controlled by the same group but that was highly speculative.

I would think Satoshi is getting close to becoming the first Bitcoin billionaire.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#114

Post by josephagoss »

antonios wrote: post #76

Note, this isn't a list of rich people, it's a list of rich _addresses_, and one can have many addresses.

And many people can be apart of one address, although that is more risky. One of the top addresses is the Just-Dice investors address, which has between 50,000 and 60,000 bitcoin.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#115

Post by csomar »

Interesting as BitCoin proponents complain about Bankers greed and how 1% own a huge percentage of the wealth. It seems that a really small percentage of addresses owns most of the BitCoin wealth. And these addresses might be owned by even less people.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#116

Post by csomar »

chrisacky wrote: post #23

Can you imagine how many of these BTCs are actually lost forever. Look at this address: http://bitcoinrichlist.com/address/198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5... The last time this address was touched was 2009, and has an even 8,000 coins (back in the day, this only amounted to 320 mined blocks. You could do that in what?... a few hours/half days?[1]) The owner probably ran his system for a few hours, collected 8000 coins, tho…

I don't think it's an issue

1. Bitcoin third-pary services security will get better.

2. People are now more aware of security concerns.

3. You can divide a BitCoin to smaller units.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#117

Post by KGZotU »

ajuc wrote: post #90
anopows wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the fact that early adopters are psychotically rich for doing nothing is... one of the many signs of a flawed system. No they risked their money with a speculation that had almost 0% chance of getting any return in the future. They took a huge risk, without this, bitcoin would not exist. And that's why they are rewarded: Taking a risk that almost no one would have taken to create something big. > Basically if e…

Isn't bitcoin easily manipulated? Let's say I have 1% of all bitcoins. I sell half of them, wait for the price to fall, and buy back to have 1.1% of all bitcoins. Repeat each few weeks, and let's say there's 20 people that realized this and have enough bitcoins for this to be feasible. End result = currency that's mostly owned by a few people. And when everybody realize this - bubble collapses. At least that was my t…

You might working with an oversimplified model of the market. If you have 1% of all bitcoins, you're not going to be able to sell them all at the highest standing offer-to-buy (OTB).

If the highest standing offer to buy is at $700, it's not going to be an offer to buy all 120,000 of your BTC. It might be an offer to buy 100BTC. So you sell 30BTC at $700 and then move on to the next lowest OTB, which might be 20BTC@$699.95. You walk down a line of highest OTBs and the new market price is the highest OTB that you didn't manage to exhaust. The price is lowering as you sell out.

Similarly, you're not going to be able to buy in with your entire pot at the lowest standing offer-to-sell (market price). You'll exhaust the lowest offer-to-sell, then move on to the next highest offer-to-sell, etc. The price is rising as you buy in.

Assuming that the market is efficient, the decrease in price as you sell out and the increase in price as you buy in will be perfectly balanced against each other, and any extraneous gain or loss will reflect changes in market information that occurred while you were executing. Of course the market is not in practice perfectly efficient, but that applies to any other traded commodity.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#118

Post by josephagoss »

pa5tabear wrote: post #86
josephagoss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely the Winklevoss brothers have all their coins spread over many addresses. Their wallet will show 100,000+ coins but you can't tell because they are spread among many addresses inside the single wallet file. If they use a brain wallet seed they can create unlimited deterministic addresses but only have to remember one key, and you won't see large accumulations of coins.

What's the point? Spreading the risk of loss by hack? And reducing their visibility as a target?

The reason is privacy. It's not going to spread the loss of a hack because if the hacker gets the wallet they own all the addresses.

One of the core developers theorized that memory corruption at the exact time you sign a transaction could lock away all the bitcoins in a single address. However this has never been observed. (remember every transaction spends the entire balance of an address and returns your coins to the same/or change address, if that change address has 1 bit wrong the entire balance would be lost)

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#120

Post by josephagoss »

taigeair wrote: post #46
chrisacky wrote: post #23

Can you imagine how many of these BTCs are actually lost forever. Look at this address: http://bitcoinrichlist.com/address/198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5... The last time this address was touched was 2009, and has an even 8,000 coins (back in the day, this only amounted to 320 mined blocks. You could do that in what?... a few hours/half days?[1]) The owner probably ran his system for a few hours, collected 8000 coins, tho…

No way to recover the Bitcoins?

You could run vanitygen to guess the private key to any Bitcoin address. It might take a few billion years.
Post reply on HN