Bitcoin By the Numbers: 2018 Recap
I’ve always been fascinated with the raw numbers relating to the operational status and growth of Bitcoin, especially as we ride the rollercoaster of the adoption life cycle. It’s why I created Statoshi.info in 2014 to track bitcoin metrics from the perspective of a full node.
To that same end, I’ve compiled statistical measurements of Bitcoin’s growth in 2018 from a variety of sources. It is difficult to see all of the moving pieces since the data is so distributed, but the picture becomes more clear when you bring them all together.
A couple things are clear: 2018 was the worst year for Bitcoin. Also, 2018 was the best year for Bitcoin. It just depends upon which metrics you’re focused.
Bitcoin is at the forefront of an increasingly complex ecosystem that continues to grow in a variety of ways. And for the tenth straight year, it stubbornly refused to die.
Bitcoin obituaries proclaimed per year:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 20, 2018
2010: 1
2011: 6
2012: 1
2013: 15
2014: 29
2015: 39
2016: 28
2017: 125
2018: 90https://t.co/ERqWe9S6Vi
General Interest
Relative search interest is quite high in developing countries.
Countries with the most relative interest in searching for Bitcoin in 2018. Ghana and Nigeria have replaced Australia and Singapore since 2017. https://t.co/Wgrqev6fP7 pic.twitter.com/t9nHYRmkil
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 20, 2018
Daily visitors to https://t.co/POqNimM4uy peaked at 6,000 on January 5th and have bottomed out around 300 in late 2018. pic.twitter.com/m3ES9f6rCv
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 28, 2018
The rate of new subscribers to the /r/bitcoin subreddit slowed considerably after the exchange rate dropped, but it still grew in size by 380,000 users - 61% growth in 2018. pic.twitter.com/2UdYlw0Y9N
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 28, 2018
Academic Interest
Academic interest continued to increase, which is great for the long-term prospects of this industry as we continue to gain a greater understanding of what we’re building.
Google Scholar articles published mentioning Bitcoin:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 20, 2018
2009: 83
2010: 136
2011: 427
2012: 737
2013: 1,570
2014: 3,790
2015: 4.680
2016: 5,470
2017: 10,600
2018: 14,400 (will continue to rise due to listing lag)
Cryptology ePrint Archive papers mentioning Bitcoin:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 20, 2018
2011: 1
2012: 3
2013: 8
2014: 18
2015: 20
2016: 26
2017: 24
2018: 26
H/T @Ethan_Heilman
Funding and Forking
While it feels like the ICO bubble has popped, funding via both traditional and new methods hit all-time highs in 2018.
Blockchain industry venture capital funding:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 20, 2018
2012: $2.33M
2013: $120.11M
2014: $368.81M
2015: $601.25M
2016: $597.47M
2017: $876.28M
2018: $3,127.65M
Funds raised via ICOs:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 20, 2018
2014: $30M
2015: $9M
2016: $245M
2017: $5,482M
2018: $16,718M
Interestingly, Bitcoin Cash appears to have caused chaos in the markets yet again, this time with its own contentious fork.
Bitcoin's exchange rate volatility was on the decline throughout 2018... until the contentious bcash fork on November 15th. pic.twitter.com/6fee9P76ee
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
36 crypto assets have the word "bitcoin" in their name.
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
12 have a market cap over $1,000,000.
3 claim to be Bitcoin.
1 is Bitcoin.
As we’ve seen several times over Bitcoin’s history, crashes cause flight from more speculative crypto assets to the relative “safe haven” of BTC, which results in the relative share of the market value going up.
Bitcoin market cap dominance (a highly manipulable metric of questionable value) bottomed out at 32.5% in January 2018 but spent all of Q4 above 50%. pic.twitter.com/jhlCqi0Jz6
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
On-Chain Transactions
While development of Lightning Network made significant progress in 2018, which I’ll cover later on, due to its stronger privacy features we’ll always have more accurate statistics of on-chain activity.
Daily on-chain bitcoin transaction volume peaked at $38B in early 2018 and dropped 92% to around $3B. pic.twitter.com/mLfgRlbLeP
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
Total BTC transaction output volume dropped about 66% from a peak of 3M BTC / day to around 1M BTC / day in 2018. https://t.co/mlkWYGqYaZ pic.twitter.com/1nIdpbeuX9
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
Daily bitcoin transaction outputs peaked at 1,247,000 in January and stayed steady between 500,000 and 600,000 for the rest of the 2018. https://t.co/9f6shMikYh pic.twitter.com/GJ2PSm7JnF
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
A more controversial aspect of the changing nature of bitcoin is the transaction fees. Rising fees caused significant frustration for users trying to transact in smaller amounts of value during late 2017, but they have since fallen off a cliff due to a variety of factors. Lower transaction demand, improved fee estimation algorithms, adoption of segregated witness, and transaction batching have resulted in more efficient use of block space and less contention for this scarce resource.
Over the past year transaction fees collected by Bitcoin miners have plummeted 99.5% from a high of $22,700,000 per day to a mere $110,000 per day. https://t.co/PhwRf7cZiN pic.twitter.com/AfYynlfgW0
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
Bitcoin address reuse, which is a poor privacy practice, rose again in 2018 and completely reversed the trend seen in 2017. pic.twitter.com/5Y3Ayx8yyi
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
The average bitcoin transaction size peaked at 750 virtual bytes in February before falling to 450 virtual bytes in Q4 2018 - a result of increased SegWit adoption. pic.twitter.com/jvhw4tbHuc
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 21, 2018
It appears that various entities have used the opportunity of lower fees to consolidate their UTXOs. Xapo has claimed that 4M of the consolidated UTXOs were theirs; it looks like Coinbase also consolidated 7M or so.
This wallet cluster that @LaurentMT identified as belonging to @coinbase in 2017 has consolidated its UTXOs from 7,200,000 down to 20,000 during 2018. https://t.co/PAGdm75Sp8 pic.twitter.com/1iXdCWoBEa
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) January 1, 2019
Bitcoin's UTXO set fell from 62M to 50M outputs during 2018, shedding a net UTXO every 2.6 seconds. This reversed most of the trend from 2017, which added a net new UTXO every 2 seconds. pic.twitter.com/6UYa1L1hmE
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 23, 2018
Bitcoin Data Anchoring
While you may think of bitcoin as being a cryptocurrency, some users think of it as a trust anchor. By embedding data into Bitcoin’s blockchain, other systems can gain new properties such as tamper evidence and immutability.
The amount of outputs that embedded data into the blockchain increased significantly in 2018, though at time of writing it’s unclear what the most popular OP_RETURN based protocols are other than Omni.
Bitcoin OP_RETURN outputs created in:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 26, 2018
2014: 13,000
2015: 655,000
2016: 1,040,000
2017: 2,253,000
2018: 6,750,000 pic.twitter.com/6tTEUUmU6c
The number of OP_RETURN bitcoin UTXOs increased from 4M to 10M this year due to the rate of OP_RETURN output creation increasing from ~50 per day to over 300 per day. Such outputs are unspendable and often used for storing arbitrary data on the blockchain. pic.twitter.com/VfVx0WmToA
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 24, 2018
53% of Bitcoin OP_RETURN outputs were used with the @Omni_Layer protocol in 2018. In recent months we've seen a large increase in output volume with data payloads no one seems to recognize. pic.twitter.com/ej9L5W2yQj
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 31, 2018
But OP_RETURN isn’t the only way to anchor other systems onto Bitcoin’s blockchain. Sidechains use pegging mechanisms to cryptographically lock BTC on the main chain and then allow users to unlock a proportional amount of tokens on a sidechain. This allows for experimentation with other features that are unlikely to be added to the Bitcoin protocol. At time of writing the only two production sidechains are RSK and Liquid.
5/10 Merge-Mining: This year the merge-mining hashrate of RSK also increased from 5% to >40% (you can check in https://t.co/ng8MRBVp8l). We used to have both merge-mined hashrate from Bitcoin and BCH. I'm not sure now.
— Sergio Demian Lerner (@SDLerner) December 19, 2018
The Liquid sidechain is only 3 months old and still bootstrapping; it's currently capitalized with 25 BTC from the net value of 100+ peg transactions. https://t.co/sgJ7HnKVbW pic.twitter.com/7QikCCuELq
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 24, 2018
Lightning Network
At the beginning of 2018, the lightning network was mostly on testnet. The mainnet lightning network began forming (against the recommendations of developers) in late December / early January.
No, don't open a channel with me! I'm trying to close everything and update. 😅 Lightning Mainnet! pic.twitter.com/mhs5SHCvRT
— Justin Camarena (@juscamarena) January 12, 2018
So many reckless people. Lightning Mainnet. pic.twitter.com/D8qC3h3sJE
— Justin Camarena (@juscamarena) January 14, 2018
'Unfairly Cheap' Lightning Network Mainnet Hits 40 Nodes, 60 Channels https://t.co/wXsP1oysrv pic.twitter.com/g2K3nNip7t
— NVK (@nvk) January 19, 2018
My node's latest view of the Lightning Network pic.twitter.com/RdKbIEBHSt
— BashCo (@BashCo_) June 19, 2018
Lightning’s capitalization grew slowly for most of the year with a few notable bursts. In July, Andreas Brekken added a quarter million dollars (35 BTC) to the network, which generated a fun news cycle around “one person controlling half of Lightning Network.” Brekken removed his BTC from Lightning not long after, citing that the risk was not worth the reward.
In November a new service started adding a ton of nodes and channels to which they assigned the aliases of LNBig.com. It appears to be an entity that is highly dedicated toward seeing Lightning Network succeed.
The number of known (advertised) Lightning Network channels has grown from 0 to over 19,000 while their capacity has increased from 0 to over 500 BTC during 2018. It's not possible to compile statistics for unadvertised channels. pic.twitter.com/uXLE4Smrlb
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 24, 2018
The number of "cut channels" on Lightning Network has been steady around 450 in the 2nd half of 2018. These are channels which, if removed, would prevent nodes from being connected to the rest of the network. The % spike was when @abrkn closed channels in July, few were "cut." pic.twitter.com/a4PUMGbKPX
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) January 1, 2019
It’s probably fair to say that Lightning Network has grown in excess of general expectations.
Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018 pic.twitter.com/P6LWP1RRzr
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 24, 2018
Network Security and Health
The number of reachable nodes didn’t fall much in comparison to the exchange rate — my suspicion is that people who run these nodes are highly dedicated to Bitcoin and/or using them for economic purposes, thus they are unlikely to turn off the node due to exchange rate volatility.
According to @LukeDashjr's estimates of unreachable / non-listening node counts, the total number of Bitcoin nodes fell 33% to from 98,000 to 65,500 during 2018. pic.twitter.com/UPRehC88X7
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 22, 2018
On the other hand, the sharper drop in unreachable nodes makes sense if many of these were newcomers to Bitcoin during the recent bubble, who had installed Bitcoin Core (on a home computer behind a router) to use as a wallet and then lost interest when the price fell.
There’s no obvious explanation for the following statistic, but it was more about Germany losing fewer reachable nodes than the US during 2018.
Reachable Bitcoin node count in Germany closed half of the gap with the United States in 2018.
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 22, 2018
US dropped from 27.6% of nodes to 24%
Germany rose from 16.8% of nodes to 19.4% pic.twitter.com/JUGODy8tgZ
A variety of improvements in block propagation have been implemented by Bitcoin Core over the past couple years and as nodes are upgrading, they appear to be having an effect. There’s also a new highly performant miner relay network, but more on that in a bit.
Bitcoin block propagation started the year off averaging over 1 second to reach half of the nodes on the network and has since improved by about 50% down to half a second. pic.twitter.com/VpbT3GbgyO
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 22, 2018
The improvements in bitcoin block propagation during 2018 are even more apparent when you look at the 90th percentile statistics. pic.twitter.com/GfPpw8ooJy
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 25, 2018
Despite the massive exchange rate decline that forced many miners offline due to unprofitability, Bitcoin's hashrate doubled during 2018 from 19 to 38 exahashes per second. pic.twitter.com/yW2qjvz97D
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 22, 2018
Due to the recent drop in hashrate, the amount of time it would take for an attacker with 100% of the current hashrate to rewrite the entire bitcoin blockchain has increased from a 2018 low of 160 days to nearly 270 days. pic.twitter.com/Bjisgvd12H
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 22, 2018
Bitcoin's network security accelerated at an average rate of 885 GH/s^2 in 2018. https://t.co/HXeJGJvGjv
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 22, 2018
To calculate this: (Dec 31 hashrate — Jan 1 hashrate)/31536000
Bitcoin blocks mined with overt "version-rolling" AsicBoost increased from 0% to 31% during 2018. pic.twitter.com/5uJmu3kwFD
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 26, 2018
Keeping orphan rates low is important for miners. Matt Corallo has been focused on this problem for over 3 years and is now on the second iteration of his miner relay network.
Comparing @TheBlueMatt's Bitcoin Relay Network (2016) vs his FIBRE Network (2018)
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 30, 2018
On the old network, 90% of blocks traversed it in under 570ms
On the new network, 90% of blocks traversed it in under 141ms (purple line is T5) pic.twitter.com/0IoRPk52Zv
.@TheBlueMatt's Bitcoin Relay Network (2016) vs his FIBRE Network (2018)
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 30, 2018
Old: many blocks required > 100KB to transmit, > 200ms to relay
New: Almost all blocks require < 100KB to transmit, < 200ms to relay
Block size is no longer strongly correlated w/relay times or data on wire. pic.twitter.com/NWt6Wn5IYn
Cost of Node Operation
Anyone who has been following the Bitcoin space for long is likely aware of the scaling debate that resulted in a variety of both software forks and blockchain forks. The good news for node operators is that it appears the resources required to fully validate the entire history of the blockchain are decelerating, meaning that node operators should be able to take advantage of the deflationary nature of technology.
I ran performance tests of Bitcoin Core’s initial block download in February and October, comparing the 0.15 and 0.17 releases, and sync time actually decreased.
Synced Bitcoin Core 0.17 from genesis to chain tip (block 547,038) on this machine in 144 minutes. For perspective, that's 31GB more blockchain data than my 0.15.1 test and it's EVEN FASTER. This is a testament to @bitcoincoreorg performance engineering. https://t.co/yR77xuL1BU
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) October 23, 2018
In terms of total storage required, the annual growth rate is now down to 25%, which ought to be easily addressed by increasing hard drive density. And of course you can always run a pruned node (though it will still have to download all of the data during the initial sync) that only needs 10 GB or so.
During 2018 Bitcoin's blockchain grew from 150 GB to 198 GB; the annualized growth rate fell from 40% to 25%. pic.twitter.com/SgkT7UsCJB
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 26, 2018
Bitcoin Economics
Pretty much everyone was well aware of the drop in exchange rate during 2018. As Bitcoin’s exchange rate fell, so did many other economic metrics.
The value of the average bitcoin transaction peaked at over $100,000 and declined 90% to $10,000 in 2018. This nearly fully reversed the trend of 2017 which began at $4,000. pic.twitter.com/KXArpxPq91
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 23, 2018
https://t.co/vFLd6EtIff estimates (by removing likely change outputs) that over $410 billion was transacted via BTC in 2018, averaging over $13,000 per second. pic.twitter.com/wjnDOQlXEi
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 24, 2018
However, actual transaction volume in terms of BTC remained rather flat during 2018. This can also be seen in blockchain.com’s chart.
We saw yet again in 2018 that the value of UTXOs consumed (spent) appears to be uncorrelated with bitcoin's exchange rate. However, while 2017's spending velocity averaged 30 BTC per second, 2018 averaged 13. pic.twitter.com/xcTgDQf410
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 23, 2018
In terms of M1 Money Supply, Bitcoin fell fairly far.
During 2018 Bitcoin fell from 19th to 49th position in terms of M1 money supply. pic.twitter.com/jyCz7oDEbg
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 28, 2018
From a relative historical standpoint, the drop was the most painful experienced over the period of a calendar year.
Bitcoin average DAILY value change during:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 30, 2018
2010: +0.82%
2011: +0.76%
2012: +0.26%
2013: +1.11%
2014: -0.25%
2015: +0.09%
2016: +0.22%
2017: +0.78%
2018: -0.33%
To calculate the above, use the formula:
Jan 1 exchange rate * (x³⁶⁵)=Dec 31 exchange rate
Bitcoin Trading
Online trading volumes predictably dropped as the general interest in Bitcoin waned over the year, though there were some exceptions in the offline peer to peer trading markets.
While bitcoin trading volume generally dropped along with the exchange rate over the course of 2018, there were a few notable exceptions in local markets. Colombia, India, Peru, & Venezuela trended upwards in terms of BTC traded via @LocalBitcoins pic.twitter.com/Q2G4vnMflb
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 25, 2018
The number of Bitcoin ATMs doubled to 4,000 in 2018, continuing a 3 year trend of 100% year over year growth. pic.twitter.com/mfYDxxkT1l
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 29, 2018
January vs December 2018 Bitcoin exchange volume comparison. pic.twitter.com/VvKCKfdtui
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 31, 2018
January 2018 vs December 2018
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 31, 2018
bitcoin <=> fiat exchange volume pic.twitter.com/wjwW00vCPY
BitMEX uses an insurance fund to avoid Auto-Deleveraging in traders’ positions. The fund is used to aggress unfilled liquidation orders before they are taken over by the auto-deleveraging system. The Insurance Fund grows from liquidations that were able to be executed in the market at a price better than the bankruptcy price of that particular position. It would appear that a lot of margin traders got rekt on BitMEX in 2018.
The @BitMEXdotcom insurance fund grew steadily in 2018 and now holds 0.12% of all BTC. H/T @lowstrife https://t.co/GZV1nt7Ltf pic.twitter.com/3q8F7L56bq
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 31, 2018
Technical Development
At a protocol level, there was a great deal of work done in 2018. Bitcoin Core and Lightning Network Daemon repositories were particularly active.
2018 commits & contributors, excluding merges from upstream forks:
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 31, 2018
Bitcoin Core: 3274 | 194
LND: 3050 | 139
geth: 1209 | 219
Grin: 1171 | 70
Zcash: 1026 | 53
Monero: 2084 | 111
Bitcoin ABC: 786 | 41
Dash: 766 | 18
Ripple: 304 | 25
Stellar: 626 | 29
Litecoin: 54 | 7
Source: calculated from the default development git branch of each repo.
git shortlog — summary — numbered — since 2018–01–01 > contributors.txt
To remove stats from upstream contributors, output the upstream’s shortlog to a file and remove the numbers. Then you can use grep to remove those names from the downstream repository’s shortlog.
grep -vwF -f ../upstream/contributors.txt contributors.txt
Bitcoin Core Git/GitHub Stats 2018:
— Jonas Schnelli (@_jonasschnelli_) January 3, 2019
* Total Pull Request Created: 1'451 (~3.98 per day)
* Merged Pull Requests: 1'305 (3.58 per day)
* GitHub Comments/Reviews: 26'185 (71.7 per day)
* Commits: 2'023 (5.5 per day)
* Git Contributors: 194
* GitHub Contributors: 1'131
Note that Jonas’ commit number is lower due to excluding merge commits.
The Bitcoin developer mailing list was relatively quiet in 2018 (you can see scaling debate spikes from a few years ago) while the Lightning developer mailing list picked up steam after a very quiet 2017. pic.twitter.com/tYggalBJnh
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) December 29, 2018
Conclusion
Most people are only familiar with the exchange rate of Bitcoin, if that. But exchange rate is just one of many metrics we can use to observe the evolution of this ecosystem. While any given metric can be gamed or may be taken from sources that aren’t 100% reliable, by using a diversity of metrics and sources we can get a better rough idea of what’s going on.
Yes, Bitcoin fared poorly in terms of exchange rate in 2018. But by almost any other metric the system is improving and growing. Those of us who are dedicated to this system shall continue to BUIDL and add value; we have no control over the market but I expect that it will catch up to us sooner or later.