Bitcoin Forum

Word from Xinxi core dev for litecoin, and charlie lee himself.  This is finally a step forward for the sleeping giant Litecoin

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/53c0v6/confidential_transaction_for_litecoin/

No offence but that seams like desperation, they can't think of anything else so they do the flavour of the month, not that it matters to me it's no threat to my investmenT.
Just reminds me of when MNR changed to XMR because XC was getting pumped thus starting the "add x to the start of your coins name because it sounds cooool" trend.

Coming from shitcoin shadowcoin pumper.....
I believe because LTC is extremely matured and stable, the likelihood of anon features to actually be utilized on a massive scale is greater than one of these newborn start up ICOs...

Ya i agree ..dumb idea that will back fire.

The idea is not working to well for the other ANON coins either

Never pander.. it's a death sentence.

LTC will do well in the long run anyway for the reason mentioned above maturity it's been up it's been down but it's still here that says there is confidence in it, that's what future investors will be looking for as things in the world get crazier.
I believe BTC LTC futures are set in stone at this point, a few other useful alts will also do well.

LTC will be stabilized with anon features utilized globally in the DNM's before any other new shitcoin shadowcoin.

Actually X in front of the coin name make it compliant with some standards. But yeah, who cares of standards?
And Litecoin's news.. desperation or not, sound good. It's a step that Bitcoin is afraid to make. Because if Bitcoin will do that, all the discussions about XMR, DASH, SDC, zCash and others would be completely useless.

it's shadowcash and it's over 2 years old with a smaller less funded development team and way more features then LTC.
LTC is just lucky it was the first coin to clone BTC that's what set it in stone the rise of BTC gathered a massive speculative community around it, nothing more then hype.
I't has no advantages over BTC anymore or shadowcash :-*

The advantage is it's Litecoin not shadowcash that will never be used more than a speculative pump and dump to hell.
The advantage of confidential transactions on the LTC network over BTC is that it's actually able to handle the increase in resource demand coming from the confidential transactions.  The LTC network can handle it.  Also, the fee increase wont be nearly as substantial as opposed to btc.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/confidential-transactions-how-hiding-transaction-amounts-increases-bitcoin-privacy-1464892525

So much with your knowledge about history of cryptocurrencies.

On topic. I don't like the idea...

If you don't mind me asking, what is there not to like?

Don't get me wrong, I always liked Litecoin. But I think that anonymous coins has no real future, because authorities will prosecute them sooner or later. A true anonymous cryptocurrency will have future if it is a state currency. :) If the LTC anonymity is optional (i.e. to be able to choose if you can use it or not), then it's good.

That's just my opinion though...

Yes, confidential transactions would be an option.  Some places need transparent transactions for example to track the transactions of some nonprofit organizations.

at first I thought what a bad idea, just like others on this topic but reading the post on reddit I think this can actually work and be a good thing for litecoin. especially since it only needs a soft fork.

although I am not pretending to understand the technique they want to implement, for that I have to read more about this "Pedersen commitment" but I think this can be a good step forward for litecoin to stop being just a clone of bitcoin with faster confirmation!

i dont understand the tech. but if they really will implement an anon-feature in LTC then this will be huge. i am thinking about changing all my BTC into LTC.


BTW: price already started to rise. is it time to buy the news?

this is wonderful news for litecoin,i want to see the price of litecoin surge to new levels,was wondering what the development team was doing since the price was stable for a very long time,hope these developments will make a change .

It is a start for Litecoin, but Litecoin is going to have to deal with its effective 4 MB blocksize limit every 10 min.

According to the roadmap the release coming in the next couple of months doesn't include a change to that limit. It does state that they are investigating a flexcap block size limit. Based on other statements the intention is to scale LTC upwards utilizing various methods.

https://litecoinassociation.org/data/roadmap.pdf

LItecoin faces way more challanges then that. The simple announcement and 1 feature developed doesn't mean it will go back to the good old days. Those days are over forever.
At best it can hope to have an semi active community with a few pumps and dumps so now and then.

Litecoin shitiest coin of them all.

This coin has no future. I don't expect it will be able to hold $3.8 before end of September. Big crash coming soon.

This shit coin just needs to fucking DIE already.

I read the roadmap, and yes Litecoin looking at a flexible blocksize limit is very encouraging. I will very interested to see what comes out of this. The only viable long term solutions that I have seen for a flexible blocksize limit also require a tail emission. That being said this does not mean, I have a proof that a long term solution for a flexible blocksize limit without a tail emission is not possible.

This is assuming there isn't a repeat of the ETH/ETC fiasco.

I find it odd that after several years of the claim that "Litecoin does not need development" there is now an attempt to include privacy enhancing features. What happened?

Why the change of heart?

Block size limit is an issue, but so is not having a tail emission to incentivize miners after block rewards hit 0.

"to add the confidential transactions feature" as developer xinxi states


imo is pandering to the trolls who have no interest in litecoin

people could guess by now i'm a big fan of litecoin, but i am certainly not a fan of this road.

Maybe its just a gimmick to increase the interest in Litecoin, but I don't see it that way. I would allow myself to compare LTC with a good old fashioned factory where the handmade production is with a very high quality and people working there are with a 15+ years of experience. Then all of a sudden, a factory with robots and high tech pops up and starts producing the same product @ low costs. It doesn't have the quality of the good old fashioned product, but they are selling it in a much better package and at a lower price. You can guess the outcome.

Does it matter if it is a move made of desperation? If they pull it off and make a good anonymous coin out of litecoin, who will be desperate now? Monero is accepted in the darknet market so they are ahead of everyone with the competing anonymous coins. Only Litecoin could come after them in that niche because it already has the existing infrastructure.

It is a good move for them and we should all support it so that we have more practical options of anonymous coins to choose from.

Of course.  But then all the others have lost their purpose.  I think it is a great thing if litecoin can include anon features, even though it is a break of the original contract, because that will legitimize to the anon side, which it should have been and is  a fundamental flaw in bitcoin (not making any accusations to Satoshi: you cannot get everything right the first time).

That said, it somehow kills the immutability of protocol intend of litecoin, because anonymity or not is an INTEND, not just a technicality. 

Nah, can't fully agree with you. I think that the main purpose of cryptocurrencies are to be "internet money" and/or to create some extra wealth (which is like the Satan to the top 1% (or even much less) of the world's population). If I had to compare anonymity vs. "Satan", then I would say the chance is 40/60 (i.e. states considers themselves more endangered from "internet money/wealth" than anonymity).

Honestly, I fail to see the purpose then.  "internet money".  Hell, I can pay everywhere with VISA or Paypal. 

And "clickbetting" on a zerosum game, isn't betclick or the like good enough ?  And then there is the real stock market.  One doesn't need any block chain to bet on "exchange" tokens, no ?

You don't need anon for that, but you don't even need block chain for that.  Only web sites and web site IOU on exchanges.
The game is the same: you can only make money by ripping off someone else ; and in the process, the intermediate agent (the exchange) takes a percentage of your battles.  What's the point ?

Let's just say that the blockchain (which is not all about money, but in this case...) is VISA/Paypal, but on another level. Something like: physical cash > VISA > blockchain. Thing is that companies like G4S will have A HUGE problem with the blockchain, because they won't be needed. :)

Nope.  Block chain is slower, clumsier, much less accepted, riskier, more volatile, and isn't CAPABLE of replacing VISA...
If it is to replace normal, law-abiding, official sales with all taxes included, block chain is in almost all cases a worse user experience than just typing in your visa card number on a web site, receiving a confirmation code on your smart phone, and done with it.  And if there are problems, scams, ... you can complain, and get your money back.  That's also why there is a small fee to be paid.

If it is to replace the same functionality in the same circumstances as VISA, hell, bitcoin lost the game even before it started ; so that cannot be the goal.

You're probably right about everything (since I'm not a coder), but I can compare it with Internet. The blockchain could become something like Internet 2.0 where it would not depend on "Internet 1.0". For example I was ISP back in 2003 until the end of 2010 when I sold my network. When I first started, the Internet of my network was 3 mbps. By the end of 2005 (giving the fact I was working alone and didn't had much money) every end-user had 100 mbps download and 50 mbps upload. Of course, back then Bulgaria was pretty advanced when it comes to Internet speed.

Anyway, future will tell. :)

I have to say I don't have much faith for LTC development.

I don't just see prosecution as a problem.
It opens up a can of worms..
It will put an X on their back.

Govt's like the US, China and Russia will have an interest in exploiting the anon scheme.
What is it you all think agencies like the NSA do ?
There is people out there that are paid to circumvent shit like this.

That causes a wide range of problems.

Because then how do you circumvent security in the tech world ?
Well for one thing you can attack these so called anon coins with social engineering.
You can weazle your way in the back door by joining the dev team as a mole.
And if needed pull a code update like what happened with Cryptsy's Lucky7 coin hack theft.
If the govt only needs the attack vector to work once then who cares..

I can think of limitless problems with this shit actually and i have posted pretty much all of them already.
And you all acted like whiny little fucking assholes calling me names when i did.

I posted real serious issues and i was met with "Liek OMGZ teh Spoetnikz is teh TROLLZ FUDDING !!!111"

Put up a wall and you will have the hackers on your ass around the globe.
I seen a Russian govt sponsored public hacking contest online where they posted a prize for hacking TOR.

The US govt had attended the Black Hat Hackers conference in California some years back.
The FBI put on a demo with a power point presentation showing attendees how to hack a WIFI router with public free tools and it worked so well i had 100% free internet from around 2008 until 2013.

Who is going to win smooth vs humanities smartest and best hackers who are paid any amount of money to hack any target ?
Who you going to bet on ?
The hackers that need to break through 1 single time or the guy at Bitcointalk who needs to have a flawless record ?

If hackers were able to punch through in a key area with Monero it could help unravel almost the whole dark market leading to a mass of arrests.. your security hinges on smoothie and a couple other amateur cocky coders thinking they can outwit EARTH's best & brightest bad guys.

That is if we assume they have not been bought.. because lets not forget we are talking about humans that can be bribed.
Osama Bin Laden was nabbed because of a Lambo bought for a rat in the middle east..
In return for a phone number.

The head of the Bitcoin foundation was given an invite to attend a private meeting with the FBI and he did.
What do think they discussed ?
I believe it was Gavin who used to get a 1 million dollars a year paycheck for his "work" on the foundation.
And he said publicly that they the FBI just wanted to ask questions about Bitcoin.
..ya i bet they did (so they can hack it)

or.. bribe him.

and i bet all it took was giving him a junior g-man card.
All they probably had to do to put him in their pocket was declare him an FBI agent.
That probably stroked his ego hard and he was eager to run him and tell his wife.
Waiting in the mansion from the multi million dollar Bitcoin shit.

So uhhhhhhhhh you all love to speculate about WHO Satoshi is right ?
The biggest most asked question in crypto history ?

So what would happen if Monero got big ?
What would you see ?
You would see Spoetnik and no one else EVER asking who the fuck launched Monero.
And how Spoetnik pointed out 100 times how it was super fishy it was launched as Bytecoin..
then dropped and the original dev surprisingly bolted from the scene never to be scene or heard from again.
I have postulated 100 times that wouldn't it have made more sense that the original dev never left ?
Wouldn't it make more sense that he simply changed his name while he changed the coin name ?
eh Smooth ?

Ever heard of common sense retards ?

Ever thought to even ask how Monero started ?

Of course not.
None of you ever have.. i am the only one on the record bringing this up over & over.
But..
If Monero got big you all would be asking then now wouldn't you LOL

And don't you think that matters when we are discussing the anon coins security when all of Silk Road hinges on smooth ? or or who ever the fuck he or the others are ?

I don't trust any of those pricks.. they have proven to be deceitful to push their agenda in the past lots.

Think carefully people you get 1 chance to be secure.
Hackers need to bust through the defense 1 time.

And people who are more knowledgeable like me are warning you then you should listen the fuck up.

Remember my Cryptsy example earlier ?
Well who was in charge of protecting the user base of mouthy dipshit greedy brat cheer leaders at Cryptsy ?
A kid named Mullick who told me in 2013 he had no previous coding experience.
And i seen quickly how his attitude changed in time.. he got more & more cocky here in crypto.
Later he denied saying that too when i confronted him with it.
And i was right he did not know how to code because he always had to pay Shakezulu to fix his coin CAPS when it broke while the coin was disabled on Cryptsy until he could get his buddy cloner to fix it for him.
And yet he of all people was the guy in charge of wallets and checking the code and compiling the daemons for cryptsy etc.
HE was the kid doing code review BEFORE adding them to Cryptsy.
Which he failed miserably with when Lucky7coin was used to hack Cryptsy for over 12 million via Github.

I can post quotes of Cryptsy staff bragging in detail about their security methods.
Worked real well didn't it ?  :D

Get it ?
Get what i am driving at here ?

It's easy to talk shit.
It won't be as easy when all of Earth is after you though.

"Security" signs are actually "HACK ME" signs..

ANON coins are a really fucking dumb idea period /.

---

EDIT:

Also if a coin is ANON optional ..it will still be regarded and treated and used as an ANON coin anyway.
See what i just wrote above.. that all does not change because it's "optional"

Coblee has stated that he is not adding this feature to support dark web users. He is adding confidential transaction to ensure fungibility. The thing that does worry me about Bitcoin is censoring coins in the future.

Ahh you arguments is full of facts and information, I can`t blow my mind with all the facts you gave us!


I  for start would like o know more how this would be implemented and used, I know no government gona accept pure anon coin, if it could be used so it be in line with legalization, I would welcome it

Now that's funny.  If monero's anonymity would be *totally* broken, that is, if the whole chain would be deanonymized, that would mean that dark markets would be at the same point of exposure as if they had directly used bitcoin, where the chain IS ALREADY de-anonymized.  So even if the whole of monero's crypto were to fail you wouldn't be worse off than if you had used bitcoin from the start.

I agree with you that security and crypto are difficult. As you say, while you want to do something else, you have to make sure that you don't make one single fatal error.  While the attacker needs only one success and can fail as many times as he wants.

However, you forget something.  That is that the attack has to be worth it, because nevertheless, the attacker will have to spend means and effort.  So the higher the barrier, the higher the price before it starts paying off.  If you do not agree with this, then I guess you don't lock doors (after all, a locked door has to have everything perfect, and a burglar only needs one single success), you don't use passwords and you don't use ANY security measure, in computing or otherwise, because the same reasoning will tell you that it is useless: any attacker will only need to find ONE failure, while your security will have to get everything right.

You're thinking too much in absolutes.  Absolute security doesn't exist.  Even if you've never done anything illegal, it is perfectly possible that you have been in the wrong place at the wrong moment, and even the most law-abiding citizen can be convicted to the most severe sentences ; as a mistake, or as some sacrifice for one or other cover-up.  I believe that more than half of the death penalties in the US are on innocents.  So much for "trusting the state for your security".  

And IF you're doing something that might displease someone of TPTB, they will find a "legal" way to make you pay for it and induce subjugation in anyone even thinking the same way... IF YOU MAKE IT EASY for them.  This is why you have to make it difficult for them.  Difficult doesn't mean "impossible".  It means that the price they have to pay to do so, is sufficiently high so that the small crime you're committing by displeasing a member of TPTB isn't worth the effort.

In other words, the more you can make it difficult to have DRAGNET security violations of your privacy, the harder it is for TPTB to silence efficiently EVERY opposing voice.  That is not the same as guaranteeing that you can do what you want behind an iron-wall security that cannot be broken.  It means that they have  to single you out, and really really want you to do so.  And they will get you.  But they won't silence everybody that way.

Illegality is an absolute necessity.  Laws have to be broken, and law enforcement has to be inefficient to a certain point.   Even if you are OK with the idea of a state and law (I'm not, personally, but even if you think that state and law are necessary and good by itself as a concept), there must be room for illegality.

I heard this from the mouth of a lawyer, who made the compelling argument like this.  Back in the 1950ies, homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom.   Imagine that law enforcement of that law had been perfect.  Imagine that ALL homosexual activity had been found out, procecuted, and the punishments (prison and "medical treatment") perfectly applied to every one single homosexual in the UK.

There would not have been a homosexual movement.  They would all have been in prison and "medically treated".  There would not have been a WAY to even CHANGE THE LAW, as nobody would ask for it - given that no-one being homosexual would have been around, not in prison.  Illegality is needed for society, even with law and state, to be able to evolve.  Something that is considered illegal at a certain point in time, must be able to exist "underground" in order for it even to have a chance to change law and opinion about it.
Abortion is the same story.  If every single woman having recourse to illegal abortion, and every person helping her, would have been perfectly taken care of by the law as it used to be, there wouldn't have been any case to plead for it to become legal.   Free radio emissions, the same.  It used to be illegal (at least in Europe) to have free radiotransmitters.  If every free radio would have been taken down within the first half hour of emission, the now legal operation of non-state radio transmitters would never have seen the daylight.  

In other words, if law enforcement is perfect, society cannot evolve over ancient laws, because the alternative, demanding for the change of the law, would be so severely exterminated, that the demand would be gone.

My opinion is that "dark markets" are in exactly the same situation, and that one day, most of what is handled there, will be legal, BECAUSE sufficient dark markets existed.

The war on drugs is a lost cause, similar to the war on homosexuality.  But in order for that to change, you have to be able to let it exist in illegality until the laws adapt.

If you want to use something that is accepted and in line with legalization, then you should use fiat.  There's nothing better than fiat to be in line with the law, if that is what you want.  Crypto has no use for you in that case.

@dinofelis
For one thing using an anon coin on dark markets will become a "target".
This can not be denied no matter how hard you try and rationalize around it.

And it is you that missed the point in my ANON rants.. a false sense of security.
Read what it says on Monero Hoodies ?

http://i64.tinypic.com/kbyhlf.jpg

And we are not talking about the financial cost of doing a 51% attack on a block-chain.
We are talking about hackers out there who do shit because they are cunts.

Such as the Ubuntu forums hack seen below via a Google image search..

http://i63.tinypic.com/2drbf4j.jpg

Further more.
You don't grasp the potential value to a government investigation.
Lets say for example an NSA / FBI agent needs to break through to track a Terrorist on the *NEW* Silk Road.
The cost to them may be of no concern what so ever.
You think the US govt cared about buying a Lambo for a guy in exchange for a phone number to get Bin Laden ?
They prob would have paid any amount of money.

Besides how do you know technically that Monero's ANON defeated is the same security level of Bitcoin using "Mixing" in this hypothetical scenario.
Who says people would know it is compromised then and only then deliberately START using "Mixing" services with Monero.
Unless they are already doing it on top of Monero's in-built ANON security.

See how your retorts crash & burn in flames ?  :D

This is your trademark Monero Cockiness™
They are quick to press those T-Shirts / Hoodies making Bold claims but as you can all see Dino here in his glee to defend Monero sort of forgot about various aspects.
Why ?
Because all of Earth is smarter than 5 shill's here.
It's a numbers game.. hackers just need 1 win.. vs the other side needs permanent perfection.
And have you looked around on the web lately ?
What hasn't been hacked ? Bitcointalk 3 or 4 times ?  :D
..we are about due again  ::)

And Dino that FIAT comment was retarded.
Who the fuck are you to declare the intentions of Crypto ?
I see you showed up here SEP 2014.. probably for Doge Coin LOL
But the guy you quoted is right.
It will never happen !
So your retort in response is funny.. an admission of failed adoption.
AKA: First world big govt's are not going to support ANON coins.. ever !
So the adoption potential of these ANON coins is handicapped from day 1 and worse..
they will be a target by govt's and hackers alike around the globe.
And even worse considered criminals coins by the public.. a pedo, guns & meth coin.
Not something i want any part of that is for sure.

And LTC adding an anon feature ?
If it CAN be used to hide criminal activity then it will be.
And it will get the reputation for it and the same treatment outlined earlier.
You can not launch a currency then dictate what it's used for.
Like coin dev's who think their coin will not be targeted by pump groups.
Intentions don't mean squat.

Because using non-anon coins on dark markets will not be targeted ?  That's silly.


As far as I know, Bin Laden didn't do anything on Silk Road... Dark markets are for small fish.  Really big guys do it in the back rooms of government itself.  The government is not interested in taking out small fish, except if it is to scare away too much small fish.  Dark markets are the little people wanting some freedom, nothing more.  That pisses off governments all right, but not like Bin Laden.

And again, the essence is distributed systems.  Silk Road was a centralized system with a single point of failure.  A distributed dark market is much, much harder to take down.


Because bitcoin mixing is already simple to take down.   The easiest way is to put a honeypot mixer node at the FBI, and you gently mixing your bitcoins on the FBI computers.  The second point is that mixing is far and in between, and only adds somewhat more burden to the chain analysis.  Also, about ALL people involved in mixing are worth hunting, as they have something to hide AND TAKE RISKS TO DO SO.

No, mixing is actually worse than not mixing on the bitcoin chain concerning privacy and "staying under the radar".


Mixing on top of monero would actually BREAK anonymity more than add to it.  Because you have to leak much more information about you doing so, than not doing so, and trust the mixer to forget about you.


No.


There's a difference between "hacking" and "breaking crypto".   If the crypto is good, it cannot be hacked.  DES has never been hacked.  It has been brute-forced, but that was to be foreseen and no "hack".  56 bits is now searchable.


Logic.  What makes crypto hard, clumsy, unpractical and a pain, is the need for distributed trustlessness.  That can only have one intention that makes sense: anarchy.  If you have a state or any other centralized body that is to be trusted (because it is trustworthy, or because it has the biggest guns and you are afraid of it), then EVERYTHING is much easier to do with a centralized trusted agent.  All the hassle of crypto is unnecessary then.  It simply doesn't make sense to go through all that difficulty, if you can trust a central agent.  And a state cannot have it that you don't trust it.  So crypto and state don't go together.  At best, one can tolerate the other up to a point.  If you give in to the centralized trusted entity which requires it, you obtain fiat, which is WAY WAY more practical than all that mess with block chains, proof of work, huge files, confirmation times, and irreversible transactions.

The ONLY sensible reason to go for crypto is anarchy.  And that's why I'm interested in crypto, and only for that reason.

Crypto can also be a zero-sum betting casino, but *you don't even need block chains for that*.  You can just as well bet on exchange "fiat" coins.


I already told you that I don't trade crypto.  I think that is retarded, to play in a zero-sum scamming casino.



If the goal of crypto is not to go underground, hiding from these governements, or outright trying to destroy them, crypto has no reason to exist, anon or not.  But believe me, in that case it is better to try anon.

I think the statement that years of claiming "Litecoin does not need development" has occurred is somewhat misleading. It comes from a single tweet from a conversation between Charlie Lee in a conversation with user Darth Camel (December 2014). What Charlie actually said was "LTC doesn't need development right now. Adding gimmicks does not help a currency succeed. Liquidity, merchants and users does".

The conversation was between an individual looking for more positive news for litecoin such as being added to coinbase. Charlie Lee goes on encouraging him to find ways to contribute to litecoin rather than just expecting others to make it happen.

This statement has been used for years, taken out of context and is just another example of how special interests will use a simple sentence to mislead those interested in cryptocurrency but unwilling to do any research. The fact is Charlie never said "Litecoin does not need development" and was primarily trying to make a point about adoption. It still remains true that liquidity, merchants and users are needed for adoption in general (of any coin).

Here's a link complete with a inaccurate title to bait the reader (what a surprise from cryptocoinsnews.com) for those interested in the truth:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/litecoin-creator-charlie-lee-claims-litecoin-not-need-development-says-adding-gimmicks-not-help-currency-succeed/

I saw that tweet and I've used it number of times, but I don't remember if it was back in 2014. Charlie Lee is indeed implying about adoption and that is what is the most important part of the digital currency's evolution. The fact that several things are proposed for the LTC development doesn't mean that Lee is giving up on his words, it's in fact the opposite.

In the mean time, retweet! :) Even Charlie Lee did. https://twitter.com/FAILCommunity/status/777822871154483200

Good coins (LTC among the greatest) must be supported, no matter if you (don't) "invest" in them and/or hold some.

EDIT: Whoever talks bad for Litecoin is a hypocrite to me.

lol at the beginning when they say that litecoin is superior to bitcoin, because of faster confirmation time, which mean more orphan and no congestion, which mean because volume of litecoin is so small is not funny to compare it to bitcoin, really stupid

Time to buy LTC again!!! (FInally!) ;D

So far anything i heard from the LTC guys i have agreed with.
But if they are going to put an *optional* anon feature into the coin ?
I think they are making a serious mistake and it will do more harm than good.
If they are considering it i hope they reconsider and think REAL carefully about it.

For one thing they would end up looking to the public like they are pandering.
Late & a dollar short.. the public will turn it's nose up at LTC if they do ANON.
It will not "come across" as what they think it will.
It will end up being seen as pandering for attention etc.

I have said for ages that if it works then fuck off with the Road Map whining..
and GO USE THE DAMN COIN !
SO it's obvious the LTC guys "get it"
I did not know they were saying the same thing all along basically.
Adoption guys..

And adoption + ANON coins are going to be a problem.
Is this not obvious ?
So adding even optional anon features is going to hamper adoption.
This is not a step forward but a step backward in my view.

Of course it's just my opinion and they will do what ever they want.
But i hope people speak up and throw in their opinion too.

@Dinofelis
I don't think your retorts are of very good quality this time around sorry.
With no anon Bitcoin would be and is vulnerable ?
Yup.. so what ?
I am not debating Bitcoin am i ?
But there is mixing services that are used etc.. did you read my last reply when i went into that ?

I guess there is two roads you can go down.. the legit route with some level of compliance or the dark side.
You can't have it both ways people.. you can't go down both paths.

I personally will not even Google search the word "Silk Road"
So i sure as hell will not be using crap like that.. i want NOTHING to do with it all.
And i am willing to bet your average users out there not crypto-nerds will feel the same way.
..when they are told XYZ coin is used on Dark Markets for illegal activities.

We need adoption and not by *MORE* fucking criminals.. we already have enough of that demographic.
It's bad enough Bitcoin's press is always about Ransomware these days..

If you want to solidify Crypto as a a niche scene then push on guys.
Pushing ANON shit because you think Dark Market coin adoption will provide you profits is a selfish way to look at it and detrimental in the larger scheme of things.
Like buying Monero coins after hearing about them used on Dark markets hoping this will lead to a surge in buying and there for put profit in your pocket.
But on the grander scale we have more dark market activity which is just going to be viewed to the public as a negative thing thing to the entire crypto scene in general.

Sometimes profit now is not worth it guys.

You need to consider things longer term.
I would rather invest in coin not used on dark markets and wait for the legit users around the globe to join Crypto.
Rather than being a sleazy douche trying to make a quick buck off of Dark Market bullshit.

And i have said for years since 2013 it WILL NOT MATTER if it is optional.
If it is an option it will be perceived and treated as an anon coin regardless.

All i can do is throw in my 2 cents.
What i said above i literally have been repeating exactly word for word since 2013.
And so far my predictions have been coming true !

Some of the responses in this thread are very interesting, and what I find the most interesting is the philosophy that some folks have and how different it is from those who work on Litecoin (whether it be the developers or the Litecoin Association).

There is no desperation, there is no flavor of the month, no gimmick, and certainly no pumping. If any of this were happening, then it would have happened 2 years ago when that article came out that shyliar linked. We actively look for opportunities to make the Litecoin and crypto experience better because we honestly believe in the work that we do. Unlike the vast majority of cryptos out there, Litecoin isnt here to make people rich or a get rich quick scheme.

I've personally (and openly) stated that I believe in the Satoshi vision, which is to utilize cryptos as an alternate payment method to fiat. This is the goal of Litecoin, and something that I have discussed with Charlie at lengths about. Our vision is to see "USD, Bitcoin, and Litecoin accepted here". Is it a long hard road ahead of us? Hell yes! Even Bitcoin cant get away from the traders grasp and the ideology that cryptos are nothing more than penny stocks. But that doesnt mean that we just say "screw it" and throw our hands up in the air.

Right now confidential transactions are not set in stone, but merely one of many items that we are looking at in order to improve the Litecoin experience. Xinxi just happens to be very enthusiastic about this particular item, to the point where he wants to have more community interaction and thoughts from folks on the subject. And from an ecosystem perspective, I personally wouldnt be doing anyone any favors without reading the pros and cons from the community on the subject when advising the developers on how this could affect the larger Litecoin ecosystem.


Just a little more information to add to this, the Litecoin developers nor do the Litecoin Association staff are paid at all. We are all volunteers, and work on Litecoin because we all share the same mindset and sets of philosophies and ideologies (in regards to Litecoin core being more well funded). For the funds that are raised, it helps with paying for help we may need in terms of contractors, web hosting and protection, and other items such as the trademark issue we have been fighting.

Litecoin was one of the most if not the most fair launches ever in crypto currency. The Binaries were supplied weeks in advanced (at least a month if I remember correctly) so people could set up and configure on the test net, Charlie only mined the first 2 blocks for testing, and the launch date and time were picked by the community. It was so fair in fact that to this day there is a nasty rumor that Litecoin was instamined because the difficulty didnt catch up with the amount of support that Litecoin received at launch (you know, difficulty retargeting an all).

Back to the desperation part and my small tangent here, the same article that Shyliar posted also includes a small snippit from one of the many charities I helped organize. Just some proof to show that yes we do care about the community and dont do it for the greed. We feel that we must hold ourselves to higher standards to show cryptos and the world as a whole that we arent just a bunch of wolf of wallstreet wannabe's.



On a side note, spartak_t are you the one behind @failcommunity handle?

It all depends on what "adoption" means to you.   I have the impression that you are, like so many, a crypto "investor", that is to say, someone that is gambling in a zero-sum game with the hope of getting more out of it than he put into it, which comes down to ripping off others (that's the nature of a zero sum game, and getting out more).

As such, for you, the demand for "adoption" is understandable: adoption = influx of greater fools.  You don't want them to do anything with those coins except generating demand for it, and have them pay high prices for it, so that you can "make money" at their expense.

If that is the case, then I perfectly understand why:
1) you don't want any smear in its name
2) you want it perfectly compliant so that you can legally use the money you ripped out of the pockets of others
3) you are probably even wanting to pay taxes on that money, if there are sufficient others and the gains are big enough

But this is nothing else but "greater fool theory".  People "invest" in bitcoin, because they think that "adoption" will lead to "more and greater fools".

But let us assume that bitcoin has reached maturity.  That in 2025, the bitcoin price is still $600.  Would you be happy ?  

After all, for most of the "adopters", that's what they will experience: maybe they bought bitcoin at $100 000, but 10 years later, the price of bitcoin is still $100 000.  Sooner or later, "adoption" will reach maturity, and prices will not increase any more.

So what is the advantage of having, say, 5 bitcoin, over having a bank account with $ 500 000 on it ?

(don't come in about taxes and so on, it will all be perfectly legal, known, and regulated as you like it).

What's the f*cking use of bitcoin, if it is just to hold money like a bank account, but with all the hassle and the fear of having your keys stolen ?  Why not have it on a bloody bank account ?  What's the difference ?


We don't care about "investor" adoption, do we ?


It is not "vulnerable" as in "cracking", it is vulnerable in as "tax agencies may find out and your buying history may be uncovered rather easily by law enforcement".


THERE, we agree perfectly, and my point is that crypto has NO USE in the first case, fiat is better.  Apart for the "greater fool game" of "crypto investors", which sooner or later will come to an end, when "maturity" is reached.


My god.  I have trackmenot running, which searches for those evil words every minute.  At my office and at home :)


Then what are you doing here ?  Ripping legally off newcomers ?

Hmm, maybe you should try to change your username bitcoinlitcoinbtcltc. :P

I've posted my thoughts on this as a reply to a reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/53lqq3/litecoin_confidential_transactions_philosophically/

If anyone has questions for me, I will try to answer them. Post it either here, on reddit, on telegram, or even twitter.

This is taken out of context and the time that happened was during a different phase in the cryptosphere. I believe during that time the cryptosphere was crazy about NXT and all the other platforms that had similar features like the ability to make your own token and have it traded in the exchange in the platform. Counterparty was also new and it had its own exchange. Then there was Dogeparty which was a flop. I speculate that there were a lot of people who felt that litecoin was going behind the times because it was not following that trend.

But the statement by Charlie Lee that said that LTC does not need more development is what he really felt at that time and it is true. Then now seeing how XMR is going forward and in front of the rest in all of altcoins and also became accepted by the darknet, who would not have a change of heart? XMR could be the nail in the coffin of LTC if it does not have those features of XMR integrated.

Yes. It's not a personal account (though I have one, but I'm not using it), but as for now I am the only one who controls it.

It is going to be an uphill battle if LTC is trying to implement and match the privacy features that of monero.

Somehow I don't think that is the goal, based on recent statements, but it remains to be seen what is true.

Not even close. I don't think that's the idea and imho, it would be a huge mistake. I honestly believe that the anon coins would be targeted by the authorities at some point.

P.S. Don't take this like I am a XMR hater. 

This sounds like "I think that strong crypto will be targeted by the authorities at a certain point, so let us all use backdoored crypto".  Or "I think that free, secure operating systems are going to be targeted by authorities at a certain point, so let us all use win10 or OsX".  Or ...

You can list many things.  If you are afraid of using your freedom, because those wanting you to be their slave will be after you, then you've already lost your freedom.  If you do not stand behind your freedom, one will not give it to you.

So, yes of course, anon coins will be targeted.  So what ?  Non-anon coins will be institutionalized, and lose their purpose.

I guess I can better tell you what I was thinking at that time. Litecoin gets all the Bitcoin developer's work practically for free. I did not think that adding the latest fad would help Litecoin much at all. Litecoin, like Bitcoin, was already by far a much better form of money than anything else. We just needed more exchanges, merchants, and user adoption. Other coins need these gimmicks to pump their value, but Litecoin did not.

That said, I've know all along that fungibility was the one feature that keeps Bitcoin/Litecoin from being perfect money. And this is something Bitcoin will solve eventually I believe. But Litecoin can help out. It's much easier to get a soft fork (or even a hard fork) pushed through for Litecoin. And with a much smaller market cap, I think it's a perfect place to test out something like confidential transactions. (Of course, Blockstream might disagree and think that Elements Alpha is a fine test network for CT.) So, I've decided that it's time for me to do something to help move us towards this goal.


We are still figuring this out. Of course, doing a hard fork is a high barrier and would require a very good reason.

What do you mean by "targeted by the authorities"? Do you think anon makes Litecoin less valuable because of this?

You better do your research before you follow the herd, looking at LTC I don't thing they have good developers to make that transition because the project has been riding only on the success of BTC for very long time, unless they are hiring more developers now

This will never change, no matter what I think or feel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEhSk71gUCQ



Your words:


I'm not saying that adding certain anonymity would make it less valuable. That has nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that "some people" would raise their eyebrows. :) I'm not living in a movie full of conspiracy theories, but in reality they can just label Litecoin as a threat of the national security of Zimbabwe and screw it all over. They are not even obliged to explain why. I personally think that anonymity would be a main weapon of the states which are fighting crypto.

P.S. I have no problems to go outside my building now and scream "power to the people", and then fight with whoever makes me remarks.  

@spartak_t. I am curious what you think. For fungibility's sake is it not better for LTC to have confidential transactions? Wouldn't that make each coin have more value?

It is my name so you can call me Spartak (Spartacus). :) What I think could not be fully explained with my poor English wording. Early on I've said that if the anonymity/confidential feature is optional, then it's fine, but this is again two-edged sword. Let's say that I represent a powerful state, which is fighting cryptocurrencies and my opinion matters. I can just say: - Litecoin gives you the chance to do crimes.

Darknet markets are named like that for a reason. No matter if you sell flowers or AK47's.

Yes but using litecoin for crimes will happen anyway, just look at bitcoin. The advantage of having confidential transactions in making each coin fungible and the same. Unlike bitcoin now some people fear that the coins that went thru the darknet market will have less value than the coins that did not.

For me personally I think it is overrated but those people that said that fungibility is important for the future of the coin might be right.

What is needed is cryptocurrencies to be (widely) accepted as money. A lot of people care about their privacy, but they have it (at least they think they do) while using fiat money, right? Cryptocurrencies should focus on being "better money", not a "better way to hide ourselves".

mar my words.
"litecoin will go to the moon in the near future."

the whales have been accumulating and if anybody was left behind or was busy in other places, they have came back to litecoin again. and especially with the current news about the confidential transactions which is the new popular interest, there will be a lot of attention to litecoin and soon there will be a big rise because of all this.

Yeah, right. And what if the scenario with the authorities targeting anon coins become a reality? All of these altcoins are going to rush in hard forks or just die. Guess what happens with the rest who didn't took that way? :)

You are looking at the situation from the point of view of the authorities. Better money is only better if it gives ordinary people the freedom and the control of their own money without any individual or institution snooping around and trying to stop it. Also I think your fear is caused by thinking that your favorite coin might lose "value" in $ because the said authorities might come after the users of the coin. Let go of that thought.

No. I am trying to foresee how authorities would/may react. How about companies which are transferring money by using cash trucks? "G4S" alone has over 600,000 employees. The blockchain tech could literally kill them and anonymity won't help here. This alone makes cryptocurrencies a better money and its more than enough for them to become widely used. Cryptocurrencies should not necessary replace fiat money. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I think that no one with their right mind can think that they actually can replace the mighty $ (or euro, GBP - you name it). Some day it may happen, but I think we are not going to be alive and see it.

Don't get me wrong, I have no fear. Why do you think I'm using my identity and everything? It can only take you 30 seconds to know who I am. That's because I simply don't care. When you are discussing something, which does not depends on you, then you must always add the masses in the equation.

Digital currencies needs to improve their security and scalability issues, nothing more. After that it all depends on how you are market them. Most of the fiat bills are just papers, which matters to some of us. You are just giving a paper in the store and they are giving you good. Who said that this particular bill worth something? A $100 bill worth the paper, ink and the work involved in its creation. Go and give that bill to some Zulu hunter, he won't give you even a gazelle's hoof for it. That's pretty much it.

Linux is far superior than Windows OS, but go and compare Linus Torvalds and Gates's net worth.  

Why is that needed ?  Why do we need cryptocurrencies, and if you have a good reason for that, why would they need to be widely accepted as money ?  What good brings crypto, that fiat doesn't have, and is better at it ?


But transparent block chains are WAY WAY WAY less private than fiat.  

^ This! ;D

This is the main argument, which cryptocurrencies have! I already said that If confidential transaction is something optional, then it's ok - no worries. If the states start claiming that is a way for doing crimes, then we can all blame companies which produces weapons for all the killings caused by their "products". It's like "You are producing something, which can kill people.".

EDIT: i.e. They don't take responsibility for what happens next.

But then again, states are always twisting things so...

But who wants that ?  Nobody wants transparency for himself.  At best, you would like to have transparency for TPTB, but you will never get it.  So the only thing that remains, is that TPTB will remain just as opaque, but that YOU, simple citizen, will be entirely delivered to total transparency.   Who the hell would want such a thing, apart from TPTB ?

I think that we should simplify things and don't think too deeply. Let's just focus on fungibility. We have, how much? Probably over 150 different fiat currencies, but there are a lot of places where you will not be able to use your $ (or whatever). You are often limited. Serbia for example is not in the EU yet they are accepting EURO in most of their shops and services. Bulgaria is in the EU, but shops and services are generally not accepting euro as a payment. You need to exchange them for BGN.

There are lot of different things that may attract people to use some cryptocurrencies. Some cares about its security, others for its speed and there are even people who only cares about the logo. To them is important how you look, no matter if you are the greatest product/mind in the world.

So far Altcoins are not being adopted.
As a matter of fact many popular coins have lost users since 2013.
I have met many people who thought Bitcoin "was a thing" ..in the past.
They said oh that drugs & guns digital criminal internet money thing ?

So..

TOPIC.

Is optional "confidential" features going to help or hinder adoption ?

If you think it's going to help you are high on crack /.

I beg to differ:

https://twitter.com/FAILCommunity/status/778892050737618944

This is mostly speculation, but it surely gives some hints.

Bitcoin almost neither.  A little bit, such as for VPN, or VPS.  That's what I'm using it for.
But it is not much.

Eh, fungibility doesn't mean that your coin is universally accepted.  Fungibility means that if I give you a dollar bill, you don't care WHAT EXACT dollar bill (from the moment it is a "real" one), nor "who held it previously".  That if I do a bank transfer of Euros to your account, you do not care exactly "what Euros" (that doesn't even make sense for bank Euros) or "who owned which Euro before me".

With bitcoin (and litecoin, and ethereum, and ...) that IS the difficulty: you DO care whether this coin was once on Silk Road, or owned by the DAO hacker, or ...


Is that what all this mess is about ?  Concerning security and speed, VISA is way, way better.  So in the end, people will adopt currencies because of a logo ?

It is exactly (and mainly) that. But cryptocurrencies (as of now) will be always compared with fiat money (i.e. when John is accepting LTC for his services, he will always compute it in USD/EURO/whatever).


Transfer what kind of money? M2 money? :)


Well, yes... this surely could raise some questions if a crime is committed and part of these money are traced to you.


Of course not... and somehow - yes. You must always try to foresee how the masses would react to your product. So far Litecoin could depend solely on Charlie Lee's decisions (if he decide to do something, which he thinks is good for Litecoin (but I'm not saying he'll do that)).

P.S. Please stop with your VISA examples. :) The future is ahead of us and currently cryptocurrencies needs to increase their user base. If that happens x5 by the end of 2017 it would be a huge success. That would (presumably) give them market cap of $60B, which is still 3-4 times less than the VISA alone. :)

EDIT: Ah, and let's focus on the subject of the thread my friend. ;)

Sorry for creating a second post, but I missed that and I think it's fair not to edit my previous comment.

This is because of one simple reason: The average Joe does not accept Bitcoin as money. I've said it number of times that I stopped talking with my real friends about cryptocurrencies, but they slowly starts to realize that they are indeed money. Like one of them who is a simple-minded driver (it could be classified as an american hillbilly). He was with me in couple of occasions when I exchanged bitcoins for BGN (the Bulgarian currency) and then asked him: - Do you think that Bitcoin is money now? He is still not convinced. :)  

Lee already said it - gimmicks are not that important. Adoption is. This is my "philosophy" too, no matter if SomeNewCoin make a 0.1 ms transaction to Neptune, without aliens to track it.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeJpQQt_b8c - so much with the VISA. ;)

Nope.  It means that there is no distinction between the different units of a single monetary asset.  That THIS dollar bill, or THAT dollar bill, are equivalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility


Indeed, that's why I call them "bank Euros", and not central bank Euros (M0/M1).



It is not only a matter of crime.  You could also have boycotts.  Because on a transparent chain, every single coin takes with it its particular history, no coin is indistinguishable from another one, so  they are not fungible.



If the goal of "crypto" is just to sell yet another financial product, then you can do that, but I fail to see the purpose.  Of course some can get rich with it, as with every financial product.  But I'm not interested in financial products for the sake of having a financial product.  I want it to serve a purpose, and I fail to see what it might be, apart from aspiration to freedom and (hence) a form of anarchy.


My question is again: why do cryptocurrencies need to increase their user base ?  What GOAL does that serve ?  What purpose ?


That's what I'm doing.  I'm trying to explain that the only sensible purpose of crypto is freedom and anarchy, and that in that case, you should of course expect aggression from states, and anonymity is a good thing.  It will of course "hinder adoption" but that's not a problem because the only adoption you would lose that way, wouldn't be adoption in the name of liberty and anarchy, and hence not something that is to be looked for.

So even if you divide the market cap by 100 by introducing anon, that's still a good thing, because the other 99% you're losing, wasn't having any reason to use crypto, apart ripping one another off in a zero-sum game (in other words, "adoption of a financial product").

To put it otherwise: suppose that crypto is "selling plastic guns", and anon is "making them fire real bullets".  Now, as the goal of the plastic guns would be to defend yourself, clearly, making them able to fire real bullets would for sure improve them in what they are made for.  The argument "we shouldn't implement anon, because it will be forbidden" is the same argument as "we should not allow the plastic guns to fire real bullets".  But then, they miss their reason of existence: to defend yourself.  You cannot defend yourself with a gun that cannot shoot real bullets.
If we should follow the reasoning "we need our guns to be plastic, and not have them fire real bullets, because we want more adoption of our plastic guns" ; yes, sure, but there's no point in having more adoption of guns that do not allow people to defend themselves.
My point is rather: if these guns have to have any purpose, they should be able to fire real bullets.  If not, there's no point in selling those plastic guns.  So if "making them fire real bullets" divides the market by 100, that's still better, because at least some people can defend themselves, than having much more adoption of a toy gun that serves no purpose apart from making the seller rich.

We don't care about the average Joe.  We care about the people wanting to use a free money, to do the trades that they want to do.


Adoption only matters if it serves a purpose.  Otherwise it is just another thing to rip off people in a zero sum game.

Forget the wikipedia. Fungibility actually means that there is no distinction between $10 bill and $10 worth of Litecoin. This is the true (and of course, my humble opinion) meaning.

I can't agree with you about the "zero-sum" game claim, and I've noticed you used it number of times. It does not generally determine what cryptocurrencies are. Otherwise, we should just rule Forex (or any kind of) trading out and go back to the stone ages.

I agree that the cryptoworld is a "field" where there are groups of people (pumpers) reaping off the average Joe and a lot of scammers and I really hate that. These people are saying "Hey, the average Joe is stupid and he is the one to blame if he loses his $5" and they might be right, but personally if I had the chance, I would skull f*ck everyone doing such things. We must be better than this and if someone is naive enough that doesn't mean that you should rip him off.

These people have no dignity!


EDIT:


Oh, wow... Of course we must care about the average Joe. This is why cryptocurrencies must be explained using simplicity. Why so many people fails to understand that? Do you personally care that there are people in Bangladesh which are making a living by fishing? You probably don't even know a single guy from that country yet its population is 170 f*cking million. That is why there are so many discussions about fungibility. So cryptocurrencies to meet different needs.

Let's forget for a moment that currently gimmicks in cryptocurrencies are mainly because some people are looking for a way to get rich quick. But we are not 2014 anymore. This will not matter in few years (if cryptocurrencies survive... or at least their idea).  

 
 

No, that's not it.  Of course there is a difference.  Like there is a difference between $300 000 on a bank account, and owning a house worth $300 000.  This is a fundamental economic concept: liquidity.


"investing" in crypto is a zero-sum game.  USING crypto to exchange goods and services, isn't.  "investing" in crypto simply means "trying to buy crypto low, and holding it, to sell it high".  Now, I hope you agree with me, that, given that crypto in itself is a monetary asset, and hence of no intrinsic value (you cannot eat it, you cannot fuck it, you cannot enjoy it in any other way but to transact it), and *doesn't finance any means of production*, that it are tokens that do the accountancy of a zero-sum game.  At the end of the day, when the cryptocurrency is dead, and worth nothing any more (say, 3 years from now, or 1 million years from now), the only thing that has happened, is that the total value that people put into it, came also out of it.  The ONLY thing you do by "investing" in crypto, is to hope that you will be on the side of people who got more out of it, and that must of course be compensated by exactly the same amount other people got LESS out of it than they put in.  Zero-sum.

It is different if you use crypto as an intermediate store of value between selling goods/services against, say, bitcoin, to use bitcoin somewhat later, to buy other goods and services of ABOUT THE SAME VALUE.  Here, crypto had some actual USE, namely to introduce liquidity in an operation that was going to be difficult otherwise.

Investing in crypto being a zero sum game, this is NOT COMPARABLE to investing in the stock market.  If you invest in the stock market, you permit the buying of capital production goods, that will PRODUCE CONSUMER GOODS, and hence augment economic wealth.  Products that can be enjoyed, didn't exist, and now exist because they have been produced.  There has been ADDED VALUE.  The gains you can make on the stock market are related to this dividend of ADDED VALUE, made possible because you invested in production capital.  This is NOT a ZERO SUM game.  The stock market takes part of the freshly created added value of newly created products, to reward those that bought the production capital.  In a certain way, "everybody can win" on the stock market.  There is an influx of fresh value.  Not so in crypto.  Nothing of value is made because you augment the market cap of a coin by buying and holding it ; contrary to you buying shares in a new company, that will buy production capital with it, making new products, and creating value (in principle).



No, the "early bitcoin adopter" A is exactly the same.  He didn't contribute ANYTHING with his buying 1000 coins for 10 dollars and hodling.  When he sells them for 600 000 dollars, he is ripping off the buyers (B).   This 600 000 dollars of worth did flow into bitcoin, to go in the pockets of the early adopter that only put 10 dollars in it, without there having been the slightest bit of value creation by the early adopter.

Of course, those putting $600 000 in it, still hope to be early adopters, to rip off those that will pay $ 6000 for a coin.  At that moment, these new buyers (C) will pay $ 6 000 000 for those same 1000 coins, and the B guys will pocket $ 5 400 000.  In other words, A and B got value for nothing from the C guys: the A guy got $ 600 000, and the B guys got $ 5 400 000 and the C guys put $ 6 000 000 in it.

When bitcoin will have lost all value at a still later date (in 3 years, or in 100 years or in 1 million years), A, B and if they got rid of it, C, will all have gotten value for nothing from the last guys.  This is "greater fool theory" at its best.


But the "early bitcoin investor and hodler" is exactly the same.  It is just different time scales.  It is nothing else but a "greater fool theory" system.

This is totally different if MOST of bitcoin were used as a currency.  Then you don't even mind bitcoins to lose value, and you don't want them to gain in value specially: the SERVICE of fluidity is a product that has value in itself, and for which you are willing to offer some value.  But the "investing" is nothing else but ripping off the greater fool.

There is a difference between holding $300k in a bank account and owning a house worth $300k. First ain't worth shit and second is a property. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't buy that house with your bank account. Simplicity is what matters, lets try not to dig that deeply. The average Joe (I will always use that as example, because it is what cryptos needs in order to get better adoption) doesn't know how a bank is operating. All he cares is to deposit/withdraw/use the money. Cryptocurrencies must stick to that! Why the hell I need to listen/watch countless of hours of explanations on how Bitcoin works? Or Litecoin for that matter? There are "geeks" who are taking care off. I am Joe and I don't care!

Currently our discussion is pointless, because I'm not trying to convince you that cryptocurrencies are money. Same applies for fungibility. We both have our own opinions, but here's the thing... our opinion doesn't really matter. :)

That's it... I now need to open (and try to repear) a smartphone and a laptop. Then I must do the dishes. :)

Cheers,

EDIT: Couldn't help it... ;D

You don't go to a hillbilly (Joe) to explain 2 hours what is Litecoin. You go to a hillbilly with:
- Hey, do you want to buy some beers and watch Nascar with 10% discount? You get 1 cow for free.

Then later on, Adam (Joe's friend) asked him what he did:
- I had few beers and watched NASCAR with 10% discount using Litecoin.
- What is Litecoin?
- Uhm.... I don't know.

After that it is the LTC's devs responsibility to keep the guy's money safe.

And that's the simple truth. :) Majority of the people don't know that the money are just numbers in someone's computer. US M2 money are like a $12 trillion... if not more. It is how countries with less than 600k population has a $3.6 trillion external debt (Luxembourg). That's because over a 150 different banks are operating there. Of course, at the end, Carl in Somalia works for $0.10/hour instead for $1, but that's okay if the top 1% (actually, a lot less) is fine by that.

You can't do that with crypto. Not if supply is strictly fixed.

Uh.  Of course I can buy that house with a bank account.  That's how most houses are bought.  And no, $ 300 000 in a bank account "ain't worth shit", get real.  Of course it is worth a lot.  You can buy a lot of goods and services with it.   I suppose you're thinking of "if ever the state decides, they can whipe it out".  True, but they can also bomb your house.  In reality, today, and here, $300 000 on a bank account can buy a lot of valuable stuff.  And that's the only thing that measures value, together with the direct usage value of the thing.


But my whole question is: why on earth would average Joe want to use crypto, and not his bank account ?  What PURPOSE does this crypto serve ?  You run around that question, but you never answer it.  It seems that your goal is "crypto adoption".  But to obtain what ?



Fungibility has a very precise definition.  You can look up wiki if you want.  It is not "acceptability" or "liquidity".  These are different concepts.

My whole point is that, apart from a ripping-off zero sum game, crypto has ONLY a meaning as a free currency, to do those trades that cannot easily be done with fiat.  I can't see any other useful meaning in crypto.


I have essentially unlimited state-funded resources to waste my time here.  Unfair competition, I know :)

I think you have some misconception about the fiat system, and about "power".  Carl in Somalia will always work for $0.1 per hour.  With, or without crypto.  That's in the nature of power.  The Egyptians didn't have sophisticated monetary systems, but Carl did work for peanuts too, and the Pharaoh was rich, and his aristocracy too.  This is in the nature of human hierarchical organization. It is not the result of the financial system, but the result of hierarchical power.
The financial system, of any nature, ends up serving the purposes of hierarchical power, but the financial system is not the CAUSE of that power, nor of that wealth.  It is just one of the means.

Strange as it seems, our financial fiat system doesn't work so badly.  What makes rich, is not so much the financial system in itself, but rather two classes of unfair property rights: intellectual property rights, and the rights to natural resources.  These are the two lever arms that make big fortunes.  Think Bill Gates, think oil.  Think Virgin, think Monsanto.  The evil is in these concepts of ownership: the right to forbid people from thinking and imitating (which is the nature of our species) and punish them if they do, and the right to own part of nature, on which we depend.  This is today's lever of power and wealth.  It is guaranteed by hierarchical power, itself framed on military violence and propaganda. 

The villain in the fiat system is the seigniorage.  But here, the good old US of A did a master job in handling the world's resources in their currency, and making their currency the "reserve currency" (a totally fake idea that finds its roots in the gold bugs, not understanding the abstract nature of money).  Having one's money as a world reserve currency actually means that you're the only one able to buy the world with a printer.  That's what the USA did, and their "external debt" is in fact nothing else but the measure of how much they bought the world with reserve paper.  As moreover natural resources such as petrol are denominated also in $$, they can also buy up all the resources of the world with a printer.
No other issuer of fiat can do this, because the printer would cause inflation.  But not if what you print, is stored abroad as "reserve currency".  This was an utmost brilliant move after WWII, to buy up the whole world.  This is why the US of A will do anything, including bombing the shit out of you, if ever you try to make another currency the world reserve currency.  The ironic part is that if you get their bombs on your head, most probably you were the one making them to sell them to them, or you have been giving them other resources to do so.

But if you want to see a rather well working fiat system, look at the Euro.  It is a private money, owned by a banking consortium, that has been adopted as state money by several EU states.  It kills them, because states never had the discipline to do correct bookkeeping. 

Crypto would not work much in a different way than the Euro.  Of course, crypto is not a debt-based system and doesn't have the same elasticity, but grossly, states adopting a crypto would be somewhat similar to the introduction of the Euro in several EU countries: the state loses its privilege to create money.  That doesn't stop states from squeezing out taxes out of every little bit of value you produce or hold.

You are right that M2 money are numbers in a computer.  But so is M1 money.  M1 money is numbers in the central bank computer ; M2 is numbers in a commercial bank computer.  They have parity in value, because commercial banks arrange that if you want to, you can always exchange limited amounts of M2 into M1.  And they use M1 amongst them to do their accountancy, because of course bank B2 doesn't accept bank B1's money, but only M1 money.  So if a customer Joe of B1 sends M2 money from B1 to Jack, customer of B2, what actually happens, is that B1 must send the same amount of M1 money from B1 to B2.  At that point, B1 destroys the equivalent amount of M2 money in Joe's account is destroyed by B1, and B2 creates the same amount of B2 money in Jack's account.

This is like on an exchange:
If you've sent 10 bitcoin to Coinbase, then Coinbase has now 10 bitcoin, and creates, out of nothing, 10 "bitcoin IOU" on its website for you.

There could be a system that you send those "10 bitcoin IOU" on Coinbase to Jack, who is on Kraken.  This function doesn't exist, but it could very well exist one day.  What would happen is that if you do an order of 10 bitcoin from your "coinbase account" to Jack's Kraken account, coinbase destroys your IOU on its website, and sends 10 real bitcoin to Kraken.  Kraken now gives 10 website bitcoin IOU in Jack's Kraken account. 

This is how the fiat system more or less works.

The fiat system has more to it.  If you go to a bank, and you want to borrow money to buy a house, then:
- the bank INVENTS NEW bank money for you, and gives you bank money IOU (a bank account)
- takes your guaranteed promise to pay back, with the mortgage on newly bought your house

The new bank money will go somewhere else when you buy your house with the borrowed money.  So the bank will have to transfer M1 money to the other bank.  However, in as much as the other bank also has a customer that borrowed money, and sent that money to your bank, both banks are "in equilibrium".

So Coinbase and Kraken could do the same.  You could go and borrow bitcoin IOU at coinbase.  Against your mortgage, coinbase could INVENT NEW bitcoin IOU in your account.  If you transfer them to the guy form whom you buy the house, and who has a Kraken account, you would send your bitcoin IOU from your borrowing, to his Kraken account.  Coinbase would have to send real bitcoin doing so.  But maybe a Kraken customer did the same, and bought a house from a Coinbase customer.  So in the end, Coinbase and Kraken have been handling "website bitcoin IOU" like banks handle bank account money.

They can permit to have much more bitcoin IOU than there are bitcoin on the chain.  Like banks having about 20 times more bank money than there is central bank money.

It would be very similar.  And the system doesn't work so badly.

Geez, you really do have time. ^ This is wrong in so many levels. Long story short. USA has how much gold? Like $500 - $600 billion, but the M2 money in circulation are like $12 - $13 trillion. These "money" includes (very often) imaginary assets. You can't say:
- Give me $1 trillion. I have 25 million BTC in assets.
- Bite me! There are not more than 21 million.

Period.

This of course can change in the future. But that is why I am not ruling everything out, it would be stupid. The number of outcomes is big.

So what ?  Money has nothing to do with gold.  Even M0 money is not related to gold.  M0 money is just as fictional as bitcoin is: just a number of tokens, with that difference that the central bank can mine as many of these tokens as she likes (not entirely, there have to be given a kind of debt IOU).  There is NO "basis value" in the fiat system, not more than there is in bitcoin.  And that's a good thing.  Money is imaginary.


Of course.  Fractional banking was invented with gold already.  There's no difficulty doing fractional banking on top of bitcoin, not more than on top of gold, or on top of M0 imaginary central bank tokens.

So *there's no point* in using bitcoin as "base money" because you can build a very similar fiat system on top of it as ours.  
You could do like in the 1930ies: forbid people to do "exchange token withdrawals".  You can still transmit "bitcoin" from exchange to exchange, but it is forbidden to withdraw them.  In the 1930ies, the US forbade people to exchange their dollars for real gold, although dollars were supposed to be backed by gold at that time.

In fact, you could just require much higher "withdrawal fees" (say, 50% of the value) than "exchange transmission fees" (only 0.5% of the value, when on chain bitcoin transactions will be, because of block size limitations, already 10% of the transaction value of an average user transaction).  Then, most people will use MOSTLY exchange IOU "bitcoins", and exchanges can do fractional bitcoin banking with a ratio of 20 - 1.
Exchanges can do this, because they do only a few settlements per day as they have direct lightning-like micropayment channels between them.