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

It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#91

Post by not_really »

300bps wrote: post #84
disruptalot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of any of the parties you listed successfully exercising their power against the protocol? Sure anyone can affect anything but how did any of them selfishly affect the fundamental properties of the protocol?

Are you aware of BCH, BSV and ETC?

Ironically I think ETC is the only network here that proves your point, and I think most people would agree that the reasoning for moving to ETH was fair.

BCH and BSV are scam attempts, and I wouldn't say they've been successful.

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#92

Post by acdha »

howdydoo wrote: post #87
acdha wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People give sales pitches for lots of things. You don't have to listen to them. No, but when something has completely failed to live up to the sales pitch and then people try to pretend they'd never made those claims, it's important to remember that track record when deciding whether to trust the new claims. This is especially true in the case of cryptocurrencies which have no value other than social consensus beca…

Bitcoin is a technology that has various use cases. Just because some person gives a sales pitch, doesn't mean that sales pitch becomes the benchmark by which to measure the technology. Bitcoin is decentralized and does not have one stated goal. Many people use it for many different reasons. If someone keeps changing their claims or is otherwise acting scummy, just ignore them. There are shysters in every industry.

I realize you have a financial interest in us believing that but this isn’t random strangers but the entire movement dating back to the initial manifesto.

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#93

Post by randomhodler84 »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #31
maxwell86 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bitcoin has no banks, period.

right, most people keep their crypto in exchanges which are definitely not just worse banks

Most people don’t. In fact there are only 1.3M BTC left in exchanges today out of 18.9M BTC that exist.

There is about 250k BTC on ETH as WBTC, the largest secondary pool in escrow. Ren has about 18K BTC in escrow. Lightning network is about 3k BTC.

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#94

Post by randomhodler84 »

bogota wrote: post #62

Crypto will be the death of HN. OPs comment is something that has been talk about since 2012 and looking at one or two parent comments they cover the depth that is required to answer why this doesn’t matter or can’t be determined. However it’s crypto so now we have 50+ comments about why X thinks Y is stupid. Why crypto is a waste. Why crypto is the best. But its all 100% stupid unfounded word vomit. HN has shows cry…

We should never attempt to ban technology, it only grows more powerful in the shadows.

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#95

Post by seedless-sensat »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #90
jonathan-adly wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here. Everybody running and screaming about the OP statistic have 0 knowledge how bitcoin works or purposefully spreading false information. It's like the elections being stolen, or anti-vax propaganda or whatever other idiocy being spread on FB on any given moment.

No, OP is correct actually >95% of Bitcoin is owned by 2% This is just the lower limit on the concentration of wealth in Bitcoin, found from onchain data. Since people can have multiple addresses it is possible that the 2% actually control 97% or even more of btc supply

This isn't necessarily true, because some of those largest wallets are probably exchanges/trusts. It can go both ways: one wallet may have many owners, and one owner may have many wallets.

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#96

Post by EGreg »

chrisco255 wrote: post #85
EGreg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for Bitcoin’s vaunted decentralization. In fact the inequality is probably far more pronounced. Since multiple accounts can belong to one organizatipn - but not the other way around :) PS: if a bitcoin wallet belongs to one centralized exchange, it’s still under centralized control!

Bitcoin's decentralization remains unaffected by its distribution. But its distribution is fine. Any distribution is going to follow the pareto principle. No getting around that. If you're looking for idealistic purity, and assume it's worthless if unattained, you're wrong.

Somewhat a large strawman to go from “1% owns 92%” and “you just want idealistic purity”. And also “not decentralized” to “worthless”.

I thought this was supposed to liberate us from problems of the current financial system?

Decentralization of Bitcoin can be understood in a variety of ways.

1) To make forward progress: it is extremely centralized, all transactions in the world must go through a miner

2) In terms of concentration of ownership and effect on price: highly centralized, again

3) In terms of mining pools: once again, highly centralized

What exactly is the lure?

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#97

Post by micromacrofoot »

randomhodler84 wrote: post #93
micromacrofoot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, most people keep their crypto in exchanges which are definitely not just worse banks

Most people don’t. In fact there are only 1.3M BTC left in exchanges today out of 18.9M BTC that exist. There is about 250k BTC on ETH as WBTC, the largest secondary pool in escrow. Ren has about 18K BTC in escrow. Lightning network is about 3k BTC.

measuring all bitcoin in existence is a bit misleading because a significant 95% is locked up with 2% of accounts… which is the point of OP

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#98

Post by jonathan-adly »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #90
jonathan-adly wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here. Everybody running and screaming about the OP statistic have 0 knowledge how bitcoin works or purposefully spreading false information. It's like the elections being stolen, or anti-vax propaganda or whatever other idiocy being spread on FB on any given moment.

No, OP is correct actually >95% of Bitcoin is owned by 2% This is just the lower limit on the concentration of wealth in Bitcoin, found from onchain data. Since people can have multiple addresses it is possible that the 2% actually control 97% or even more of btc supply

Can you tell me right now how many wallets does Satoshi have?

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#99

Post by howdydoo »

acdha wrote: post #92
howdydoo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is a technology that has various use cases. Just because some person gives a sales pitch, doesn't mean that sales pitch becomes the benchmark by which to measure the technology. Bitcoin is decentralized and does not have one stated goal. Many people use it for many different reasons. If someone keeps changing their claims or is otherwise acting scummy, just ignore them. There are shysters in every industry.

I realize you have a financial interest in us believing that but this isn’t random strangers but the entire movement dating back to the initial manifesto.

I mean... no, the success of this burgeoning asset class does not depend on me convincing a single HN poster in a long-buried thread. And there never was a "manifesto", at least not one that I've ever heard about. But thanks anyway for the discussion I guess

Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

#100

Post by 300bps »

not_really wrote: post #91
300bps wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of BCH, BSV and ETC?

Ironically I think ETC is the only network here that proves your point, and I think most people would agree that the reasoning for moving to ETH was fair. BCH and BSV are scam attempts, and I wouldn't say they've been successful.

Funny that BCH and BSV claim that it’s BTC that are the scammers.

The BSV folks are particularly vocal that BTC is a fraud.

I have a friend of mine that retired at 40 from working at a hedge fund and investing his personal money well. Bought an 80 acre farm, has a bunch of a horses, a wife 20 years younger than him and three kids. He’s literally the smartest person I know and he believes Craig is Satoshi and that BSV is the best investment to come along since AMZN. I don’t get it - Craig Wright seems like a con artist to me and I’ve spent a ton of time looking into it.

Post reply on HN