Live data from Hacker News

Richest Bitcoin Addresses

bitcoinrichlist.com

201–208 of 208 posts

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#201
post #107
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't everyone could just switch to a client that blacklisted all of the coins owned by people that were in the top 100 on nov 22 2013?

Yes, that would work. And better yet, everyone could just switch to a client that works exactly like the clients we use to day except that it allows a new wallet I just created containing 100,000 bitcoins. This one is better because I get rich. And to make it work the only thing I need to do is convince everyone to use it. It's kind of like that guy who convinced everyone to allow little green slips of paper to be tr…

That is a very interesting idea, it makes the fungibility of BTC seem highly questionable, if you can look at its history forever and do an arbitrary 'blacklist'.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#202
post #195

I really don't understand how BTC make better world. I mean, it monopolized by a few people from FIRST. And the monopoly will sustain forever. If someone else make another BTC?

Suggest a better way to distribute new asset "fairly". Facebook shares are also distributed unfairly. And gold. And dollars. Also, something that looks fair for you, wouldn't look fair for another person.

What's important to me is that money is hard. If you have it, it can't be printed out of value. It should not be very costly or risky to store or transfer (like gold or USD). I want to be sure that even the richest guys can't simply extract money from me. That they have to earn it by doing work. Or earn service from others by paying them, not forcing them. Bitcoin allows us to get to that kind of protection closer than ever.

Consider this: gold was always as hard to protect as to confiscate it. It's symmetrical. Therefore, most powerful and brutal were accumulating gold over time. Gold is now owned massively by largest governments and banks. Regular people can only own as much gold as they can hide in their pockets. Extra gold is too easy to take (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102). Bitcoin is much cheaper and easier to store and transfer than to extract it. It's asymmetrical. Now big guys with guns would have to work more and steal less to get some money, then before. Stuff that was stolen or destroyed will never come back to you, but at least, over time, distribution of wealth would match more closely actual merits of market participants, than amount of gunpowder that they have.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#203
post #192
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a proxy for the public opinion of a company's net worth vs. current trading price of something with no intrinsic value

Ok, this was a weird segue. I thought we were talking about market capitalization and whether or not people use it outside of bitcoins, which they all do for basically everything. However, non-voting common stock equities that do not grant dividends basically have no "intrinsic value" either I guess. It is just a proxy for the public opinion of the net worth of the underlying asset, similar to bitcoins. I think this…

Yeah I hear you pfisch you are definitely one of the more reasonable people I have come across in these arguments. But what I'm saying is this -- I'm certainly not an econ expert it's true but I've analyzed enough of the econ involved in Bitcoin to conclude that it's really not a viable currency and most involved are speculators or black market traders as you point out. And I firmly believe the exchange rates are totally artificial, since BTC are essentially not really transacted the way one would imagine a currency to be used. It makes more sense to say they are "traded". Speculator to speculator or consumer to business straight to 3rd party processor.

It solves a real problem, yes, but not so much so that every Bitcoin should quadruple in value every 6 months, this is a bit ridiculous. After all, one could implement a BTC alternative (Litecoin for example) and achieve the same needs.

So essentially yes I see Bitcoin as a cult of naive investors who think that because of its theoretical underpinnings it will save us all. The truth is, huge stores of it are owned by black market operations and early adopters who had an exponential advantage in the ease of getting these things. Its basically like a free money machine for anyone who had change left in their pocket after spending their first crop of BTC.

If the system were ever to go down via cashout or crash or whatever, these people have as good a shot at grabbing the exit cash as anyone else, plus they can trivially buy a ton of real-world goods now through stores that accept Bitcoin, who themselves essentially send 3rd party processors the bill since presumably the processors are the ones storing Bitcoins while paying out the current exchange rate (or maybe they put them on an exchange soon after). The processors are assuming the risk because they want a foothold in the emerging shadow Wall St landscape. These are people who are putting their blood/sweat/tears into building the infrastructure that is essentially just magnifying the wealth of the founders / online gambling institutions / black market ops.

If instead all the rational people were to abandon the cult & quietly cash out, all that baggage could be left behind. The online casinos could instead foot the bill, and we could begin again with a new more stable cryptocurrency that has more utility as an actual currency. Market volatility adds some lure into the intrigue of the system but it's really just a vehicle for wealth redistribution to those who are prepared to take advantage of a flawed system.

Btw telling me it's gaining traction as a cult is not really endearing me to the ecosystem. I'm just not a big cult-lover. :P

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#204

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…

That is a strange pattern:

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/address/1HtUGfbDcMzTeHWx2Dbgnhc6k...

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#205
post #105
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you speak of a con of Bitcoin, but I don't see how any other system solves what you complain about. Please explain to me (or refer me to material explaining) how USD can possibly be stable when used by billions of people. Just because it's been stable from my point of view, doesn't mean it's stable for everyone. If your explanation relies on trusting a single person or organization, you see why I favor Bitcoin…

USD is more stable because gov/banks/etc. are all staring at it all day, as well as their country's population. Not saying I trust them but I'd rather have a bill backed by the US gov than by Satoshi Nakamoto. He's the single person YOU rely on -- the one who designed the mining system, currency caps, etc. Ridiculous. USD is more distributed than Bitcoin just because people are always watching theorizing monitoring U…

> but I'd rather have a bill backed by the US gov

I am assuming that you are fine with 90% loss in purchasing power of the US dollar in the last 100 years.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#206
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just not true for many currencies that have undergone hyper-inflation and hyper-deflation. When that happens, people tend to abandon them as currencies (though a currency undergoing hyperdeflation would be hoarded as a store of value).

Actually they often do not really abandon the currency, they just issue a new dollar that removes a bunch of orders of magnitude from the dollars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_inflation#Currency

Users (not issuers) abandon the currency as a currency until the measures are taken to assure that some measure of value stability will be restored.

Doing what amounts to a a "reverse split" on the currency is a measure issuers take to get the unit value of currency to a usable value.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#207

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…

This seems like a fundamental flaw in the currency that makes it's deflationary properties worse. Let's say bitcoin is to last a century, over time, there will be gradual losses to all kinds of problems, like hardware failures, owner errors, etc that cause lost of wallets, and thus, coins, forever. There's no way to replace these, so over time, the total number of coins it not only limited, but after the last bitcoin…

Some view it as fundamental flaw, others as an extra layer of safety against inflation.

Re: Richest Bitcoin Addresses

#208
post #135
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually the Bureau of Engraving and Printing will replace damaged or destroyed US currency if they can determine to their satisfaction how much has been destroyed. They replace over $30 million of currency yearly. The most common causes of mutilation are are fire, water, chemicals, explosives; animal, insect or rodent damage; and petrification or deterioration by burying. See http://moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/damag…

Damaged US Currency can be replaced ONLY if: (1) 51% or more of the bill is recovered (in some form) (2) the serial number of the bill can be identified

(Or at least that's what I was told during a tour of a US Mint several years ago.) Money burned up in a fire is not replaceable.

Post reply on HN