Re:Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended
by nosuchthing on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @03:27PM
(#15656634)
Reposting this as pertinent:
[1] via https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=davidgerard
[ Parent
| on HN ]
For context, those numbers came from 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
I can't find any more recent study specific to the Gini coefficient, however these[1] charts show an improvement over this snapshot[2] from May 2015.
[1]: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.... [2]: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/1-bitcoin-community-controls...
Re:Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended
by nosuchthing on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @04:55PM
(#15657495)
The original studies suggests early mining rewards were distributed mostly to a small group of users. It also shows attempts by large stakeholders to hide their large holdings by distributing funds across several wallet accounts.
If someone were to have monitored IP addresses in the swarm it may be possible to correlate attempts from single users hiding their funds across many wallets. Simply looking at the blockchain balances of single addresses will not necessarily indicate a single person controlling many addresses.
Please don’t quote large blocks of text like that, it’s impossible to read on mobile because of HN’s crappy web layout
But on desktop it looks rather nice
Re:Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended
by mrhappyunhappy on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @04:34PM
(#15657297)
How can they possibly identify 47 individuals and what does that even mean in bitcoin context? Would an exchange fund holding millions of people’s coins be considered a single individual?
Re:Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended
by nosuchthing on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @04:57PM
(#15657512)
IP addresses in the swarm, among other unique indicators of identity.