Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: some BTS stats  (Read 1345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline toast

some BTS stats
« on: January 28, 2015, 01:15:00 AM »

There are about 6300 distinct balances that have account registrations associated with them

Here is a list of how many slates have more than a given amount of BTS for a range of values. This is a decent approximation of unique voters with more than 1000 voting BTS.

Code: [Select]
742 slates have more than 1067  (BTS)
736 slates have more than 1173
726 slates have more than 1291
718 slates have more than 1420
710 slates have more than 1562
708 slates have more than 1718
706 slates have more than 1890
691 slates have more than 2079
687 slates have more than 2287
681 slates have more than 2516
675 slates have more than 2768
653 slates have more than 3044
651 slates have more than 3349
648 slates have more than 3684
641 slates have more than 4052
634 slates have more than 4457
629 slates have more than 4903
612 slates have more than 5394
608 slates have more than 5933
599 slates have more than 6526
595 slates have more than 7179
590 slates have more than 7897
583 slates have more than 8687
577 slates have more than 9555
558 slates have more than 10511
554 slates have more than 11562
549 slates have more than 12718
541 slates have more than 13990
532 slates have more than 15389
524 slates have more than 16928
511 slates have more than 18621
487 slates have more than 20483
475 slates have more than 22532
461 slates have more than 24785
452 slates have more than 27264
446 slates have more than 29990
435 slates have more than 32989
429 slates have more than 36288
403 slates have more than 39917
387 slates have more than 43909
377 slates have more than 48300
354 slates have more than 53130
344 slates have more than 58443
333 slates have more than 64287
325 slates have more than 70716
311 slates have more than 77787
301 slates have more than 85566
289 slates have more than 94123
258 slates have more than 103535
247 slates have more than 113889
241 slates have more than 125277
232 slates have more than 137805
222 slates have more than 151586
219 slates have more than 166744
212 slates have more than 183419
190 slates have more than 201761
177 slates have more than 221937
172 slates have more than 244131
164 slates have more than 268544
158 slates have more than 295398
151 slates have more than 324938
143 slates have more than 357432
137 slates have more than 393175
129 slates have more than 432493
123 slates have more than 475742
110 slates have more than 523317
100 slates have more than 575648
97 slates have more than 633213
95 slates have more than 696535
88 slates have more than 766188
84 slates have more than 842807
77 slates have more than 927088
70 slates have more than 1019797
66 slates have more than 1121776
62 slates have more than 1233954
57 slates have more than 1357349
55 slates have more than 1493084
54 slates have more than 1642393
53 slates have more than 1806632
45 slates have more than 1987296
40 slates have more than 2186025
39 slates have more than 2404628
35 slates have more than 2645091
30 slates have more than 2909600
23 slates have more than 3200560
23 slates have more than 3520616
22 slates have more than 3872677
18 slates have more than 4259945
17 slates have more than 4685940
16 slates have more than 5154534
16 slates have more than 5669987
14 slates have more than 6236986
13 slates have more than 6860684
11 slates have more than 7546753
9 slates have more than 8301428
7 slates have more than 9131571
7 slates have more than 10044728
5 slates have more than 11049201
5 slates have more than 12154121
5 slates have more than 13369533
5 slates have more than 14706487
4 slates have more than 16177136
4 slates have more than 17794849
4 slates have more than 19574334
4 slates have more than 21531768
4 slates have more than 23684944
4 slates have more than 26053439
3 slates have more than 28658783
2 slates have more than 31524661
2 slates have more than 34677127
2 slates have more than 38144840
1 slates have more than 41959324
1 slates have more than 46155257
1 slates have more than 50770782
1 slates have more than 55847861
1 slates have more than 61432647
1 slates have more than 67575911
1 slates have more than 74333503
0 slates have more than 81766853

Possible interpretations:
About 750 people have more than 1000 BTS voting. There are around 70 bitshares millionaires voting. About 500 have more than $100 worth. The top shareholder has as much BTS as the next 3 or 4. All these put together have about as much as the next 20-50? Those in turn might be in a minority counting all voters with over a few hundred dollars's worth. 50% approval might not need anyone with more than a few million BTS.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2015, 01:23:59 AM »
Awesome stats! +5%

But just to be clear. It is possible for more than one unique person to be voting for the same exact slate. It is also possible for one person to split their BTS among multiple independent wallets that each vote for different slates. I'm less concerned about the latter and more about the former. Any ideas how one could further dissect the possibility of multiple accounts voting for the same slate, perhaps by analyzing vote update timing?

Also, @svk it would be really cool if you can get the script toast used and build it into bitsharesblocks.com. It doesn't have to update continuously if it's a resource problem. Even once a day would be very useful. And it would be nice to keep the daily history of the distribution.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 01:28:25 AM by arhag »

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2015, 01:36:48 AM »
By the way, it would be useful to see the breakdown for:
  • Amount of BTS stake in genesis that has not been claimed (I believe this is the 579 million BTS figure from bitsharesblocks.com, correct?)
  • Amount of BTS stake in sharedrop that has not been claimed because it has not yet vested
  • Amount of BTS stake in sharedrop that has vested but has nevertheless not yet been claimed
  • Amount of BTS stake tied in collateral (bitsharesblocks.com already has this, it is currently 202 million BTS)
  • Amount of BTS stake tied up in market orders
  • Amount of BTS stake that is not one of the above but still is voting for the null slate.

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2015, 01:46:38 AM »
Nice info toast!  +5%
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 01:51:37 AM »
By the way, it would be useful to see the breakdown for:

Amount of BTS stake in genesis that has not been claimed (I believe this is the 579 million BTS figure from bitsharesblocks.com, correct?)[/li][/list]


What happens to this if no one claims it? Does it expire? I remember something about this earlier, but I've forgotten.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 01:59:14 AM »
What happens to this if no one claims it? Does it expire? I remember something about this earlier, but I've forgotten.

Last I remember, bytemaster said they don't want to implement the 5% fee if stake hasn't been moved for more than a year. I think this is a mistake. Some sort of expiration fee would be useful. But I would do it differently. For example, if the stake hasn't moved for 3 years the balance could be taxed linearly over the course of the following year. Meaning if less than 3 years has passed since the last transfer (or genesis if there was no last transfer) then they can transfer their stake to keep 100% of it, if 3.5 years has passed they can transfer to keep only 50% of it, and if 4 years or more has passed all of the stake would be gone.

That means the market can know with certainty after four years whether some stake has truly been abandoned (e.g. lost keys) or may come back to life at any moment, and price that in appropriately. I don't like the idea of having Satoshi-like uncertainties (how would price of BTC suddenly be affected if Satoshi Nakamoto made a transaction with his wealth on the Bitcoin blockchain?).

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 03:26:38 AM »
What happens to this if no one claims it? Does it expire? I remember something about this earlier, but I've forgotten.

Last I remember, bytemaster said they don't want to implement the 5% fee if stake hasn't been moved for more than a year. I think this is a mistake. Some sort of expiration fee would be useful. But I would do it differently. For example, if the stake hasn't moved for 3 years the balance could be taxed linearly over the course of the following year. Meaning if less than 3 years has passed since the last transfer (or genesis if there was no last transfer) then they can transfer their stake to keep 100% of it, if 3.5 years has passed they can transfer to keep only 50% of it, and if 4 years or more has passed all of the stake would be gone.

That means the market can know with certainty after four years whether some stake has truly been abandoned (e.g. lost keys) or may come back to life at any moment, and price that in appropriately. I don't like the idea of having Satoshi-like uncertainties (how would price of BTC suddenly be affected if Satoshi Nakamoto made a transaction with his wealth on the Bitcoin blockchain?).

How is abandoned stake functionally different from burned stake or stake in long term cold storage?  None are available to create selling pressure which is the only thing that can affect the rest of us. 

If Satoshi were to sell a big slug that would affect the price.  Merely knowing that he might has no practical affect.  Price is merely a question of how much is out there competing against me in the order books at the moment I want to buy or sell.

I think there would be zero change in BTC price if someone quietly burned his stake.


Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 03:37:33 AM »
Merely knowing that he might has no practical affect. 

I think there would be zero change in BTC price if someone quietly burned his stake.

I disagree somewhat. Who can say for sure that this hasn't been a drag on Bitcoin's price? Knowing that at any moment, Satoshi could dump a load, may have discouraged some people from larger investments. Shorter term, the federal government's Silk Road stash surely depressed the market for a while. I'm not blaming that alone, since there were other headwinds during that period (Gox, etc.), but it played a role.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 03:38:45 AM »
How is abandoned stake functionally different from burned stake or stake in long term cold storage?

If stake is abandoned (or the keys are lost), the public does not know this fact. They have to account for some non-zero probability that the stake is not abandoned. If the stake is burned, the public knows with certainty that the stake isn't coming back (unless the stakeholders intentionally choose to further dilute BTS to create more stake of equal quantity). When trying to estimate the supply in the future with stake that is burned, one must only estimate the probability that stakeholders will inflate (and by how much). When trying to estimate the supply in the future with stake that is abandoned, one must incorporate the aforementioned probability in their calculations as well as the additional probability that the stake may not be abandoned.

I am not saying this is a big deal or anything. I am just stating my preference that I would prefer the extra certainty.

One thing I should mention that is far more important though is that if we ever want a proposal voting system in which a certain percentage of stake quorum is necessary for things to happen, we would need to be careful about picking the right denominator. Do we include all stake that exists on the blockchain including stake that are abandoned, or do we choose the sum of the stake that has only moved in the last year, for example. So as long as we appropriately take that into account in any future proposal systems that depend on certain percentage thresholds, I don't care too much if stake expiration is never implemented (which I guess has some marketing benefits).
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 03:46:32 AM by arhag »

Offline Vizzini

Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 04:00:36 AM »

I am not saying this is a big deal or anything. I am just stating my preference that I would prefer the extra certainty.


Me too. Burn, baby, burn. Or spend it on marketing. Heaven knows we could use a lot more of that!
Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 05:13:36 AM »
This provides us a nice metric on how decentralized the system currently is. The median approval rating is currently 11%. A collusion of stakeholders with more than 11% of stake could elect 51 delegates of their choosing and take over the network. Based on the statistics toast provided (assuming 1 unique slate = 1 unique person), I estimate that the top 16 stakeholders (those who have more than 5 million BTS) have a very rough total of around 277 million BTS (which is 11% of the current total BTS stake). This means that if the richest 16 people in BTS were to collude together they could control the network. Granted, if they did that and their actions were not viewed as desirable by the rest of the stakeholders, it would likely motivate the other stakeholders (ones who may not be voting currently or may not be voting to the full extent that they can, i.e. not maximizing their 111 slots) to participate in voting more in order to raise the median approval rating.

To completely take over the network to the point where they can censor transactions that update votes, the attackers would currently need 17% approval rating. I haven't yet bothered to calculate how many more rich stakeholders would need to be added to the colluding group of 16 in order to collectively control 17% approval rating. But it seems to be significantly more.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 05:22:33 AM by arhag »

Offline svk

Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 08:53:36 AM »
By the way, it would be useful to see the breakdown for:
  • Amount of BTS stake in genesis that has not been claimed (I believe this is the 579 million BTS figure from bitsharesblocks.com, correct?)
  • Amount of BTS stake in sharedrop that has not been claimed because it has not yet vested
  • Amount of BTS stake in sharedrop that has vested but has nevertheless not yet been claimed
  • Amount of BTS stake tied in collateral (bitsharesblocks.com already has this, it is currently 202 million BTS)
  • Amount of BTS stake tied up in market orders
  • Amount of BTS stake that is not one of the above but still is voting for the null slate.

I added an issue for this and the accounts stat, will add them soon.

https://github.com/svk31/bitsharesblocks/issues/30
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline svk

Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2015, 10:11:32 PM »
I've done a similar analysis of accounts and get a similar number: 6373 "unique" accounts.

Here's a list of the balance ids that have registed the most accounts:

Code: [Select]
  { id: 'BTSN5uR4xwRhy9DGvwZFJAABFQbzYmzFe7Sw', count: 292 },
  { id: 'BTS6KNAX5vSVaaGP2WDF38ahXTsYT1CnGdqd', count: 305 },
  { id: 'BTSHxEtRkm9PRsWVuwF5RN18NMo3hHabGSt1', count: 337 },
  { id: 'BTSEmoBdfbVyRjtKDzzWey8bUkFzss15ckhb', count: 345 },
  { id: 'BTS4SFQkabQdqtH3SkYNqRgWGdPdkQV8EgUH', count: 360 },
  { id: 'BTSMmSji86zu814RHw7kweDaq186hjS3GEez', count: 365 },
  { id: 'BTSzfwpd2Gu3i6TEXfMxdmukUSpauPT49Fd', count: 484 },
  { id: 'BTSKZ4eK2GFe2qdr7yU2oXuA6i8hGCW3ASyE', count: 497 },
  { id: 'BTS8k82LVDy8A9SfmZoefPsK5JniuC8Tp2rt', count: 567 },
  { id: 'BTSPo8nCvd2img4nTwjSQEbsmDiFQ2X6j4fr', count: 2430 }

I've also added "unique" accounts data to the accounts chart on bitsharesblocks:

http://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/accounts


 
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2015, 10:37:00 PM »
I added an issue for this and the accounts stat, will add them soon.

https://github.com/svk31/bitsharesblocks/issues/30

 +5%

I've also added "unique" accounts data to the accounts chart on bitsharesblocks:

http://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/accounts

 +5%

Here's a list of the balance ids that have registed the most accounts:

Code: [Select]
  { id: 'BTSN5uR4xwRhy9DGvwZFJAABFQbzYmzFe7Sw', count: 292 },
  { id: 'BTS6KNAX5vSVaaGP2WDF38ahXTsYT1CnGdqd', count: 305 },
  { id: 'BTSHxEtRkm9PRsWVuwF5RN18NMo3hHabGSt1', count: 337 },
  { id: 'BTSEmoBdfbVyRjtKDzzWey8bUkFzss15ckhb', count: 345 },
  { id: 'BTS4SFQkabQdqtH3SkYNqRgWGdPdkQV8EgUH', count: 360 },
  { id: 'BTSMmSji86zu814RHw7kweDaq186hjS3GEez', count: 365 },
  { id: 'BTSzfwpd2Gu3i6TEXfMxdmukUSpauPT49Fd', count: 484 },
  { id: 'BTSKZ4eK2GFe2qdr7yU2oXuA6i8hGCW3ASyE', count: 497 },
  { id: 'BTS8k82LVDy8A9SfmZoefPsK5JniuC8Tp2rt', count: 567 },
  { id: 'BTSPo8nCvd2img4nTwjSQEbsmDiFQ2X6j4fr', count: 2430 }

Wow 2430! I'm guessing most of these balances are just registering common name accounts thinking they can squat on them?

Offline svk

Re: some BTS stats
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2015, 10:41:43 PM »
I'll have a look tomorrow but I'm guessing thats all the btc38xxxxx accounts
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

 

Google+