"Mafia" seems a strange and prejudicial word to use here.
"Less than 2% of the anonymous ownership accounts that can be tracked on Bitcoin’s blockchain control 95% of the digital asset" - at first I thought this was really astonishing. Now, I'm not so sure. My first interpretation was that 2% of bitcoiners have 95% of the bitcoin - but now I wonder how many addresses a typical person has. e.g. If I create an address every time someone buys illegal drugs from me over the 5 years I sell them on the darknet, and later coalesce all my earnings into some address, does that mean that my X empty addresses are counted in the 98% of have-nots and my one coalesced address in the 2% of haves?
Depending on how many addresses people typically use, and given the multi-year history of bitcoin, it actually seems somewhere between not surprising and incomprehensible to me. Like, I guess that's a percentage it could be, but I don't know how to interpret it. I think a better news article would provide context on stats like this so the reader could understand rather than just leaving the reader to figure out the meaning for themselves.
"Less than 2% of the anonymous ownership accounts that can be tracked on Bitcoin’s blockchain control 95% of the digital asset" - at first I thought this was really astonishing. Now, I'm not so sure. My first interpretation was that 2% of bitcoiners have 95% of the bitcoin - but now I wonder how many addresses a typical person has. e.g. If I create an address every time someone buys illegal drugs from me over the 5 years I sell them on the darknet, and later coalesce all my earnings into some address, does that mean that my X empty addresses are counted in the 98% of have-nots and my one coalesced address in the 2% of haves?
Depending on how many addresses people typically use, and given the multi-year history of bitcoin, it actually seems somewhere between not surprising and incomprehensible to me. Like, I guess that's a percentage it could be, but I don't know how to interpret it. I think a better news article would provide context on stats like this so the reader could understand rather than just leaving the reader to figure out the meaning for themselves.