Regarding the number of holders, the paper says: "While the original database has 896 million addresses, after we remove addresses in peeling chains we end up with 640 million addresses. Theses addresses belong to 189 million clusters, of which 116 million clusters are single-address clusters."
Not sure where the number of 68 million wallets comes from. Taking 189m as the number of holders, we'd have 0.005% of BTC holders holding 27% of all BTC. But even we take that 68m "wallet" number, and assume that each holder controlled multiple wallets, say 10 on average, we'd have 6.8m holders, and then 0.15% of holders controlling about 27% of BTC. Still enormous concentration.
More from the paper: "It is also important to note that this measurement of concentration most likely is an understatement since we cannot rule out that some of the largest addresses are controlled by the same entity. In particular, in the above calculations, we do not assign the ownership of early bitcoins, which are held in about 20,000 addresses, to one person (Satoshi Nakamoto) but consider them as belonging to 20,000 different individuals."
Another interesting part of the paper: "To the best of our knowledge, we have the most complete information about crypto entities that have been used in academic research up to this point. Our data cover 1,043 different entities. These include 393 exchanges, 86 gambling sites, 39 on-line wallets, 33 payment processors, 63 mining pools, 35 scammers, 227 ransomware attackers, 151 dark net market places and illegal services."
I do have criticisms of the paper, but those are milder. They are inherent limitations of the methodology, which the authors seem to recognize. The headline in this HN post is not remotely a fair representation of anything whatsoever in the paper.
> Not sure where the number of 68 million wallets comes from. Taking 189m as the number of holders, we'd have 0.005% of BTC holders holding 27% of all BTC. But even we take that 68m "wallet" number, and assume that each holder controlled multiple wallets, say 10 on average, we'd have 6.8m holders, and then 0.15% of holders controlling about 27% of BTC. Still enormous concentration.
The 68 million number comes from here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/647374/worldwide-blockch... and when you use these figures with the ones from the paper, the results line up exactly with the headline here.
If you do the divisions I think it's pretty clear that the video divided 10k/68m and 5m/18m, which is completely illegitimate, considering the paper is discussing "clusters" of wallets.
As for your analysis, i'm not really sure what manipulation you're doing there. There is no coherent way to adjust for the number of wallets owned by an individual, because you don't know the composition of that ownership. Unless you can identify who owns which groups of wallets, you can't back out wealth inequality here under the assumption of multiple wallet ownership. That's exactly why the paper tries to do this clustering analysis that it does. Its purpose is to group wallets presumed to be owned by one person.
> More from the paper: "It is also important to note that this measurement of concentration most likely is an understatement since we cannot rule out that some of the largest addresses are controlled by the same entity. In particular, in the above calculations, we do not assign the ownership of early bitcoins, which are held in about 20,000 addresses, to one person (Satoshi Nakamoto) but consider them as belonging to 20,000 different individuals."
This cuts both ways, though. It may be that a huge number of the low balance wallets are duplicates controlled by individuals as well. People that programmatically created wallets, e.g. for the purpose of anonymization, and left tiny bits of dust in them. They aren't filtering by low balance in any way I can observe.
> Another interesting part of the paper: "To the best of our knowledge, we have the most complete information about crypto entities that have been used in academic research up to this point. Our data cover 1,043 different entities. These include 393 exchanges, 86 gambling sites, 39 on-line wallets, 33 payment processors, 63 mining pools, 35 scammers, 227 ransomware attackers, 151 dark net market places and illegal services."
I'm sure this is all true, and i'm sure it is the most complete academic dataset used to date. That doesn't really mean it is complete though. Note that they enumerate an impressive list of entities, but we have no idea how complete their coverage of those entity's wallets is. And as someone that has done this kind of analysis, I do not trust academic econometricians just trying to publish their next paper to do a good job of it. Chainalysis is hard and inherently quite fuzzy. It's also an adversarial environment, intermediaries often intentionally try to mask their activity, as do individuals.
Let's look at the actual content of their methodology, though in the paragraph directly above:
> To link address clusters to real entities we scrape cryptocurrency blogs and websites, such as Reddit, Blockchain.info, bitinfocharts.com, bitcointalk.org, walletexplorer.com, and Matbea.com for all publicly available addresses of prominent Bitcoin entities such as exchanges, payment processors, gambling sites, and others. We supplement this information with the state-of-the-art database of crypto entities from Bitfury Crystal Blockchain. Bitfury Crystal Blockchain is one of the leading providers of anti-moneylaundering tools and analytic solutions in the crypto space
Does this sound comprehensive to you? The only wildcard here is this "Bitfury" thing which i've certainly never heard of, but we can quickly look at their customers page to get a gauge of how serious they are:
https://crystalblockchain.com/due-diligence-tool-for-crypto-...
Everyone on that list i've also never heard of. There is a company that dominates this space, and it's https://www.chainalysis.com/ Compare Chainalysis's customer list to Bitfury's. Every name on there is a serious entity that you've probably heard of.
Why aren't they using data from Chainalysis? Or data from someone else reputable? We have no insight into what "Bitfury"s methodology is, so I can't explicitly critique it, but there are really good reasons to be very suspiciuos of its quality.
Finally, I note that they make no mention of mixers or contracts like WBTC, which can hold enormous quantities of coins, and can also create tons of fragmentation in the address space, which is very likely to significantly frustrate any clustering based methodology or naive chainalysis attempt.
If you operate in this industry and haven’t heard of Bitfury, you may have less of a grasp of the landscape than you think. It was created by some of the main insiders and has employed many former government officials. I would have a rethink of my authoritative stance if I were you.
From everything I know about crypto, the linked paper checks out. A lot of people discuss these issues — I think Vitalik recently lamented that cryptocurrencies seem to devolve into feudal dollars.
Employing government officials is not an index of seriousness. I should have been more clear, i've heard of Bitfury in the context of mining and ASICs, but I was unaware they had started a chainalysis product, and I don't take their efforts there seriously. I think the advertised customer list for this product speaks for itself.
> From everything I know about crypto, the linked paper checks out. A lot of people discuss these issues — I think Vitalik recently lamented that cryptocurrencies seem to devolve into feudal dollars.
I'm not denying that the basic idea is correct: that ownership inequality is high. It's just not as high as this headline is indicating.
Remember, the paper does not anywhere assert this 0.01% vs 27% stat. That is created by combining the paper's data on wallet clusters with crypto.com estimate of bitcoin owners. If you read the crypto.com whitepaper on how they computed this, they note that a limitation of their analysis is that they cannot count people who bought Bitcoin at one time, and have since sold it. That means that if you accept everything else about their analysis (which I don't), the denominator they're using counts literally everyone who has ever owned any non-zero fraction of a Bitcoin, ever.
The genesis block of Bitcoin disagrees with you completely.
Wall Street is having a bonanza with crypto. It's normalized the plundering of retail investors to a level not seen in a century.
In Bitcoin (fixed supply cap) that part is very very different.
One big difference is that fiat/political money (political because political decisions decide how money is created and spent first before it inflates and arrives to the rest of the population).
Like El Salvador: they use the Dollar. But do they get some of the newly (for free) created trillions? Or do they only see the consequence of that money, meaning seeing their money inflated away… their part of the pie stays constant while the rest of the pie got inflated/bigger.
[1]: just google “cantillon effect”. It is interesting (the power is not only in the hands of the money holders but also in the political decision makers and those who have good relationships with them… a bit like it used to be with religion and the state… but now still with money and the state)
I hasten to add that BTC currently experiences money supply growth of 1.7% p.a. (though of course BTC inflation has approached 100% in the last half year).
Sure it was. Definitely not the only selling point, but there is a ton of drivel out there about how it is supposed to liberate us from the big bad banks (banks are now replaced by Coinbase et al) How something that's supposed to be decentralized, consensus-based, not prone to manipulation by the greedy corporations, greedy individuals and governments is now actually turning out to be something else. And it even has some real equality-related use cases like wiring remittances to Argentina, or the failed El Salvador experiment. But overall trending in the opposite direction to equality.
While this isn’t without its downsides (though see Yanis Varoufakis on CBDCs [1]), the gains from it are socialized.
By contrast, an enormous percentage of bitcoin and all other major cryptocurrencies was mined (or worse, “premined”) in the first few years after launch. What nation of people benefits from this form of inequity? Cryptocurrency is entirely nationless.
[1]: https://the-crypto-syllabus.com/yanis-varoufakis-on-techno-f...
Ultimately, I agree with your assessment of the research avenue as a straw man.
Actually, cryptocurrency is almost two orders of magnitude more unequal. The top 1% owns 38.5% of the wealth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite..., compared with the top 0.01% of bitcoin owners.
Do you find it hard to believe that ~100M people hold Bitcoin? This seems at least in the right ballpark when you cross-reference it with survey data [2].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoins-one-percent-controls-l...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/11/16-of-ameri...
With this in mind - it's less surprising that the remaining 0.01% own 22%.
This isn't TOO far off of regular inequality.
IIUC, the top 0.01% globally own >12% of wealth: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/never-mind-1-percent-let...
Given that crypto had such absurd hyper growth - I'm actually shocked inequality isn't far worse.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/craig-wright-i-invented-b...
Also, they are a way to fund criminal activity, of which ransomware is just one example.
Cryptocurrencies are barely used for legitimate payments. They are mostly used for speculation (gambling).
It's just bad news. Not the liberation we have been waiting for.
And yet here they are uncritically repeating the claims of known plagiarist and con artist Craig Wright.
The crux of Bitcoins is that its value is derived from people's belief in its value. Lot's of assets and to an extent fiat moneys work this way. The "magic" of bitcoin et.al. is that they are finite, have clear chain of custody, and can be traded peer to peer. Those features can and do inspire confidence, but at the end of the day these coins have limited real world utility outside of money transfers and holding wealth. Those uses are directly tied to the faith of the market for those coins.
If someone asked me if they should buy and hold these coins, I would say no. However, speculation is somewhat in the eye of the beholder and turns on the risk of losing the investment. It's nearly impossible to predict future changes in asset prices, especially when an asset has been steadily increasing in value for years, but has a limited history.
TL;DR you're misusing the phrase "Ponzi scheme" which means something else.
But that is also a characteristic of crypto. You cannot buy anything for crypto without exchanging it for fiat, and for that you need a new investor to give you fiat for your cryptos. If all exchanges (incl. informal ones) close tomorrow, any crypto you hold is worthless.
Now, you could say that the same holds true for shares or real estate. But that is wrong. You can hold shares you bought ad infinitum, even if all stock exchanges close tomorrow, and would still receive your money's worth (approximately) in the form of dividends of the underlying company, or proceeds from the sale of said company, without ever selling those shares. You can live in a house or rent it out, and get your money's worth, without ever selling the house to someone else.
I don't see how you can get your money's worth with crypto without ever selling it to someone else.
Which is a characteristic it shares with fiat currency. Of course, fiat currency has people with guns making you accept it as payments for debts.
Colorado is different. https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities...
Most of gold's value is because it's perceived as valuable. The industrial uses, etc, are small. Jewelry is a way to flaunt this value as ornamentation.
It is however not possible to send physical gold over the internet. Gold is also difficult to verify. You'll probably need to rely on a broker/shop and their tools to test if it's real. Bitcoin is relatively easy to verify with software anyone can download for free.
brave, but .. fail. The crux of BTC is that it is secure to attacks while moving assets that are represented digitally. In order to succeed in that, the integrity of the chain is required. Popularism is a "nice to have."
Assets whose value is derived from peoples' belief in their future value.
A perfectly secure chain moving around assets that no one values isn't very interesting.
p > “assets that are represented digitally”
Those seem equivalent to me.
Yes, most people (even kids!) now use cryptocurrencies for speculation. Which is just a lottery in disguise, except now it funds criminal activity and harms the climate. And the winners somehow have bragging rights which means more advertising. This is a very sad development.
Yes, incorrectly. It does nothing to clarify the topic and obscures the risks of actual Ponzi schemes.
> harms the climate
This seems dubious at best. It seems like a lot of mining is happening on hydro and solar power, and only shifts to carbon intensive electricity when the price is booming.
You're still warming the planet. And total energy use is so large that even carbon intensive part is significant.
And military engines delete emission controls.
I see no support for the headline number in this paper. What it appears that the people making this video did was take "1000 individuals" (which the paper defines as clusters of wallets) and divide by 68 million wallets in existence. What you actually get here when you do this is 0.001% vs 16%, which is reasonably close to the figured cited in the video, so is likely essentialy the calculation they did.
It should be obvious how absurd this is.
EDIT: Hah, actually the exact calculation they did is 10k/68mm and 5mm/18mm. That gives you exactly 0.01% and 27%. Discrepancy resolved. This is the exact ludicrious calculation the people in this video did.