IssueRaiser

It's not sarcasm.

It's not sarcasm. It's pointing out I can't prove your wrong so why argue it? It's a waste of time for both of us. For starters that address is empty. The coins from it are on the list at ~174,000 now. As for Bitstamp remember that they covered a 19000 coin loss with no problem. There are a lot of coins in big wallets but there are a lot more individual entities holding large numbers of coins as well that you are completely discounting. Between the major exchanges own holdings, lucky early adopters(I've heard estimates of Ver having a few hundred thousand coins, Winkeltwins have >100,000), gambling sites which seem to be extremely profitable in the Bitcoin world, etc,etc. There are a lot of entities with lots of coins. So while large wallets exist to see a number like 2.8m coins and assume it means there are at least 2m users is simplistic at best.

Posted by sanswork on Jun 4, 2015, 9:25 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,000 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

It's not sarcasm.

sansworkJun 4, 2015, 9:25 PM

It's not sarcasm. It's pointing out I can't prove your wrong so why argue it? It's a waste of time for both of us. For starters that address is empty. The coins from it are on the list at ~174,000 now. As for Bitstamp remember that they covered a 19000 coin loss with no problem. There are a lot of coins in big wallets but there are a lot more individual entities holding large numbers of coins as well that you are completely discounting. Between the major exchanges own holdings, lucky early adopters(I've heard estimates of Ver having a few hundred thousand coins, Winkeltwins have >100,000), gambling sites which seem to be extremely profitable in the Bitcoin world, etc,etc. There are a lot of entities with lots of coins. So while large wallets exist to see a number like 2.8m coins and assume it means there are at least 2m users is simplistic at best.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue