You’re stopping as soon as any holder gets at least 50%, or 2^20 iterations, whichever comes first? Obviously this is more likely with few starting coins and few initial participants. It’s absolutely certain with 3 participants holding 1 coin each. Even if coins were distributed by initial stake (i.e. uniformly between holders) these conditions would still often be reached with such small initial numbers.
Even with these tiny starting conditions biased toward dominance, a fair few runs never resulted in 50% holdings in the first 2^20 coins: 11 out of the 27 that weren’t mathematically impossible.
When you start with a tiny number of stakeholders with tiny stakes, large deviations will be likely.
The share-of-ownership sequence for a given stakeholder is essentially a random walk with step size decreasing like 1/n. Since variance of such a walk is the sum of individual variances, the variance for such a walk scales like Sum (1/n)^2, which remains bounded.
If you have N initial coins, the standard deviation in the limiting distribution (as number of allocations goes to infinity) is approximately 1/sqrt(N). In your largest starting allocation you have only N=30, and so the standard deviation in the limit is ~0.18. Since you have only 3 participants the 50% threshold is only 1 standard deviation from the starting values.
So basically what you’re seeing is an artifact of starting with tiny toy values. More realistic starting conditions (such as a thousand participants with up to a thousand coins each) will yield trivial deviations even over quadrillions of steps. The probability that any one participant would ever reach 50% via minting (or even a coalition of a hundred of them) is utterly negligible.
You’re stopping as soon as any holder gets at least 50%, or 2^20 iterations, whichever comes first? Obviously this is more likely with few starting coins and few initial participants. It’s absolutely certain with 3 participants holding 1 coin each. Even if coins were distributed by initial stake (i.e. uniformly between holders) these conditions would still often be reached with such small initial numbers.
Even with these tiny starting conditions biased toward dominance, a fair few runs never resulted in 50% holdings in the first 2^20 coins: 11 out of the 27 that weren’t mathematically impossible.
[edited]
When you start with a tiny number of stakeholders with tiny stakes, large deviations will be likely.
The share-of-ownership sequence for a given stakeholder is essentially a random walk with step size decreasing like 1/n. Since variance of such a walk is the sum of individual variances, the variance for such a walk scales like Sum (1/n)^2, which remains bounded.
If you have N initial coins, the standard deviation in the limiting distribution (as number of allocations goes to infinity) is approximately 1/sqrt(N). In your largest starting allocation you have only N=30, and so the standard deviation in the limit is ~0.18. Since you have only 3 participants the 50% threshold is only 1 standard deviation from the starting values.
So basically what you’re seeing is an artifact of starting with tiny toy values. More realistic starting conditions (such as a thousand participants with up to a thousand coins each) will yield trivial deviations even over quadrillions of steps. The probability that any one participant would ever reach 50% via minting (or even a coalition of a hundred of them) is utterly negligible.
[edited]