I couldn't figure out what the heck that picture was so I found this. It's a bus in Armenia they park in the street to advertise bitcoin. It has a flat tire, so I suspect it doesn't actually go anywhere.
>virtually all of the bitcoin outstanding is held by a relatively small number of people
>that the vast majority of bitcoin is controlled by relatively few players.
The distribution is [far better ](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/top100cap-btc-bch.html) for Bitcoin than it is for bch. Also note that Bitcoin is trending down (better) and bch is trending up (bad).
If we don't know much about the addresses or what is causing the trend what makes you think either is good or bad? BTC seems to have already endured larger concentrations and smaller concentrations than either coin demonstrate today.
>If we don't know much about the addresses or what is causing the trend what makes you think either is good or bad?
Surely its better to have the coins distributed over a larger number of individuals .. Less volatility should be observed due to the fact that no one user can sell a huge amount all at once. Also this would signal a higher degree of adoption to me personally.
The OP indicated that this was a negative metric for Bitcoin. I merely pointed out that it's far worse with bch and its trend is in the negative direction too.
It's negative because you say it is? You are making assumptions about the addresses and about what it means.
The largest holders are often exchanges acting as custodians. You don't know anything about those addresses or how many individuals they represent.
OP was referring to 51% of coins not moving. Commerce is not happening on BTC.
I've offered my opinion and reasoning with it.
>Commerce is not happening on BTC.
It's not happening on any chain. Especially not bch. When you discount those blitz ticker transactions there's something like 15K transactions on the bch chain a day. Which is pitiful in comparison to ~300K a day regularly on Bitcoin.
It's was trending up on BTC and then they hit the reset button for fabricated reasons and relegated it to use cases that can tolerate variable fees and confirmation times.
It is trending up on BCH, but it will take some time to get there again.
When I held btc, it was distributed across a hundred addresses for security and privacy. So I'm not sure addresses are a brilliant indicator of distribution...I guess back to the drawing board for you to develop counter argument.
Of [u/userforlessthan2mins](https://www.reddit.com/u/userforlessthan2mins)'s last **121** posts (**2** submissions + **119** comments), I found **121** in cryptocurrency-related subreddits. This user is most active in these subreddits:
Subreddit|No. of posts|Total karma|Average|[Sentiment](https://nlpforhackers.io/sentiment-analysis-intro/)
See [here](https://reddit.com/r/cryptochecker/e7c5sx) for more detailed results, including less active cryptocurrency subreddits.
^(Bleep, bloop, I'm a bot trying to help inform cryptocurrency discussion on Reddit.) ^| [^Usage](https://www.reddit.com/user/cryptochecker/comments/atbifk/how_to_use_ucryptochecker/) ^| [^FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/user/cryptochecker/comments/ascogw/faq_about_ucryptochecker_2019/) ^| [^Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=jamcowl&subject=cryptochecker%20bot) ^| [^Tips](https://www.reddit.com/user/cryptochecker/comments/ataajr/tipping_ucryptochecker/)
>When I held btc, it was distributed across a hundred addresses for security and privacy
Honestly, I'm doubting that you had a hundred different UTXOS. That would be a nightmare to maintain. And they would have to be different separate accounts, paper wallets or have their own seed to provide you with better security. Again, I'm doubting that claim. Also, you'd lose any privacy if you spent more than a single UTXO at the same place..
>So I'm not sure addresses are a brilliant indicator of distribution
I agree. It's not brilliant but reasonable. Do you suggest a better metric?
>I guess back to the drawing board for you to develop counter argument.
Why? This was the OP's claim. Go debate him.
You're forgetting something something game theory.
In 20 years when there are no more butts all the people will suddenly want butts because they missed out on all the stress and anger and pain and loss and will suddenly decide "I'll 'ave me some of that now"...
Obviously butts will be super valuable then and these people who did nothing for 20 years will be kings of the world.
It stands to reason doesn't it....
Meh I seem to remember usernames more easily than other people for some reason. So when you got someone on the ropes and you want to see just how big of a baby he is, what are you gonna do? He's right there.
How do you know I'm obsessed by the way? Have you ever seen me post before?
Oh hun you're so desperate for attention.
But as I said, there's a correlation. That's enough for\* me. So yeah, you're wrong. I'm right. Ciao
P.s. lets not forget that you went very quiet about jobs doing credit checks.
In this here country, your utility bills will also depend on your credit rating, your ability to actually rent (you think you can triple deposit past a letting agent here? You're funny kiddo)
Same goes for your car insurance, your home insurance. And of course our favourite form of personal liquidity management (here) the 0% credit cards - suddenly become unavailable.
Funny how I don't see you admitting you were wrong and just deflecting <3
So yeah, I'll wait
Bahaha you said noone making a high income has bad credit. Yes they do and in similar proportions to other incomes. That's literally what the study concludes.
Secondly, you are claiming that it's impossible to live in your society with just money. Let me bring my salary over to your country and all my cash, and I'll be living where I want, I'll have utilities, I'll have car insurance and all that with a cherry on top. And I'd get a swanky job too.
Are you telling me if I gave you a million dollars but set your credit score to 200, you couldn't get an apartment, utilities, or car insurance? Do you really think that?
>Bahaha you said noone making a high income has bad credit
Literally never said that. Even pointed out that there are exceptions that prove the role. But in your insane rage you skimmed over that.
>Secondly, you are claiming that it's impossible to live in your society with just money
Nope never said that either.
>Are you telling me if I gave you a million dollars but set your credit score to 200, you couldn't get an apartment, utilities, or car insurance?
No and your credit rating wouldn't stay 200 for any length of time anyway. That's the whole point. You'd be forced to pay off your debts or would be forced to pay through the teeth for the said apartment car whatever.
Are you like 16 that you don't understand such simple concepts?
So as I asked many times before, have you considered professional help? I'm sure I can help you find a good shrink of you were to ask like an adult.
Still waiting for you to apologise, and act like an adult for once.
And yeah you're going into block for a couple of months now. Sorry but you're just too unhinged for my liking. Can't be sure you won't buy a plane ticket and try to come murder me here lol.
You did say that. But bad credit scores are similar across all incomes. You're wrong.
Why wouldn't your credit stay low? If you have a shit load of missed payments and bad debt that shit doesn't clear for 7 years, even if you pay it back. Do you even know how credit works?
And you admit you could live on money easily. So you lied earlier.
Hehe. This guy was absolutely positive that noone makes over 100k and has bad credit and I showed him a study by the federal reserve that there is very little correlation between credit score and income. Now he just won't admit to being wrong. Can you believe it? On the internet?
Sidenote, interestingly this all started when I said people can live great lives with a bad credit score and everyone had a hissy fit about it. And swore you have to live in a van and eat bugs if you have bad credit. Which ain't true. At all. But they got pretty pretty pretty pissed about it.
Would you like to fight with me about it? They have all gotten proven wrong and scuttled away. Need some new opponents.
Well I agree you can have plenty of income AND have bad credit , there are more than a few 100K income families standing in line at food pantries .
It's more of a black and white issue as to whether one can live an awesome life with bad credit and plenty of money . Lack of good credit would make life's transactions more annoying than anything else .
Car rentals/hotel bookings /apartments would present some challenges .
It might be possible to get a secured credit card that's backed by the amount of funds in an account to overcome car rentals and hotels though , Maybe ..
Shut the fuck up fiatard! I'm squating on some prime spreadsheet cells. I'm going to be the crypto-pedo kingpin in the future. I'll remember you. No bitcoin citadel for you my friend.
I wonder if we could start a scam around a crypto based only on prime numbers? Something about the scarcity of prime numbers or something? If you want more coins you need to find more prime numbers?
I think it is because people don't comprehend what you are actually are trying to get across. You are saying that Bitcoin has wealth inequality, and the real world has wealth inequality. But Bitcoin, unlike the real world, is just a pyramid scheme that dummies fall for which only benefits the biggest Bitcoin whales.
There is no way that regular people playing a pyramid/ponzi game will every become the new top wealth holders in the world. That would require that the current biggest biggest wealth holders in the world went all-in on Bitcoin - which they would never do.