So you're assuming it has 4 times the transactions then complaining that the block chain being 4 times the size is the problem? No, I'm saying that if both currencies are successful the transaction volume will be more than what the max block size of either currency can handle. The complaint is not the size of the block chain but the scale of the loss in hashing power. If that argument makes sense (it doesn't) the surely the current situation where there's a lot LESS transactions on LTC means LTC is the better currency? You could say that the decreased transaction volume of Litecoin produces less loss of hashing power in the case of a future increase in transaction volume. That doesn't make LTC a better currency. All else being equal, the inability to mine Litecoin with ASICs makes it worse than Bitcoin. That the "developers" of Litecoin made ASICs being unsuitable as a design criteria points to their ignorance. Litecoin is crap. Who told you Litecoin can't be mined with ASIC? ASIC can be made for Litecoin, it's just the advantage is smaller over GPU compared to Bitcoin, but there are still big advantages. If Litecoin market cap goes up to the point of 300M like Bitcoin, I guarantee there will be ASIC for Litecoin. It's just that GPU mining in Litecoin won't be easily made obsolete if you have cheap electricity. You still haven't explained why decreased hashing power for everyone would result in a "big problem"? |
|
|
|
Yes I understand your theory of losing hash power, but what I don't understand is why is that a problem? the decrease in hash power would be the same for everyone that is mining, correct?
No, and no. The decrease in hashing power for a particular miner is in inverse proportion to their bandwidth. The miners with the highest bandwidth, will lose very little hashing power while the miners with the lowest bandwidth will lose the most. Litecoin's fast block times makes worse the very thing that they hoped to solve: centralization of miners. But even if we ignore the centralization of mining power, the total hash rate is what determines the security of the coin. Both Bitcoin and Litecoin will lose some total hashing power as transaction volume increases, but Litecoin will lose hashing power four times faster. That means that Litecoin's security goes down four times as quickly as Bitcoin as transaction rates increase. This is a good thing? First, a 1MB block takes less than a second to download for even basic home broadbands. Plus, most people mine on a pool, I would hope a pool is hosted on some good bandwidth, otherwise it's not a very good pool/host. Second, yes large total hashing power is good for security, but since the decrease in hashing power is the same for everyone, what is the problem? I don't really understand your logic here. It would only be a problem, if some miner can avoid the decrease of hashing power and gain an unfair advantage over others. |
|
|
|
I'm not convinced that downloading a block could be a big problem Reading comprehension for the loss. Do you understand that increasing block size means decreasing hash rate, and that Litecoin will lose hashing power four times as quickly as Bitcoin for the same increase in transaction volume? Yes I understand your theory of losing hash power, but what I don't understand is why is that a problem? the decrease in hash power would be the same for everyone that is mining, correct? |
|
|
|
You left out the fact that the first two doublings of amount of block space per ten minutes have already been done in litecoin. So when bitcoin first doubles, litecoin already did that, nothing to do yet. The next time bitcoin doubles, it finally catches up with where litecoin already is. It is only after that that litecin needs to keep up; so far it is two doublings ahead.
-MarkM-
Problem is currently Bitcoin developers has no plan to actually create a hard fork and increase the block size, because a hard fork may weaken the confidence in Bitcoin. So it's possible for Bitcoin to remain 1MB block size and become a reserve currency. Litecoin can step in and handle the daily small transactions. Even if when a hard fork is required, we can just fork Litecoin, which would have less significance, and leave Bitcoin forever untouched as a reserve currency. |
|
|
|
Explain to me why litecoin max block size is "10 times worse" than bitcoin? litecoin has 4X more blocks... I thought Litecoin used 1 minute blocks, my mistake. I updated my post. So, the max block problem is only four times worse. Here's why: If having a maximum block size is a problem, then both Bitcoin and Litecoin will suffer from it. Litecoin does quadruple the maximum rate of allowable transactions, from Bitcoin's 7 per second to Litecoin's 28 per second. But 28 is still quite low for many purposes. Both Litecoin and Bitcoin will need to raise the maximum block size at some point. With Bitcoin, a miner has 10 minutes for it to download a new block, while there is 2.5 minutes for Litecoin. Let's say that a block takes the average node 10 seconds to download. In Bitcoin that corresponds to 1.67% of the time between blocks. For Litecoin, it is 6.67%. Now imagine that we double the block size (a conservative measure). The amount of time consumed by downloading now becomes 3.33% for Bitcoin, and a whopping 13.33% for Litecoin! The Bitcoin network has lost 1.6% of its total hashing power, while Litecoin has lost an astounding 6.66% of its hashing power. Every increase in the block size will hurt the total hashing power of Litecoin four times as much as it would for Bitcoin. The reason that hashing power goes down when block size goes up is because mining cannot begin until the new block has been downloaded. Since the time between blocks is constant, any increase in the time required to download will cause a decrease in the amount of time available for hashing. This is true for both Bitcoin and Litecoin. The point is that the "developers" of Litecoin are not really developers at all. They took Bitcoin and simply hacked it without having the knowledge and experience of true cryptocurrency developers. Litecoin is a fucking joke. I'm not convinced that downloading a block could be a big problem, since given that both Bitcoin and Litecoin mining has operated for a long time without problem, and Both coins has never been successfully attacked by 51%. Decrease in hash power is the same for everyone that has to download a block, so what's the problem? Whether Litecoin developers is competent or not, is your own opinion. I think Litecoin works well enough and they did a good job if they are not true developers. Litecoin is based on Bitcoin, so as long as Bitcoin has true developers, Litecoin can just keep using Bitcoin development as a basis. I don't think it's a problem. |
|
|
|
Litecoin has a different mining algorithm, 4X larger block size, 4X faster confirmation time, 4X more divisible. I wouldn't call it "doesn't really add any extra features". Bitcoin is facing the problem of reaching block size limit, there wouldn't be a problem if Litecoin was used as silver(transactional currency) and Bitcoin was used as gold(reserve currency).
If Bitcoin truly faced problems due to it reaching the block size limit (which I doubt), much better solutions than Litecoin could be thought of. The different mining algorithm isn't really a feature, it's just there to make sure Bitcoin miners can use their CPU to mine for litecoins while leaving the whole network much weaker. The faster confirmation time is pretty much useless. I consider Litecoin and most other altcoins to be elaborate scams to profit from Bitcoin development. You can use GPU to mine litecoin, the scrypt algorithm was implemented to prevent ASIC from having a big advantage over GPU. The network is not weaker for it, but in fact stronger, since GPU is still viable, it wouldn't be controlled by a few rich ASIC monopolies that could afford to invest in risky/specialized hardware that can't be used for anything else. I wouldn't call 4X faster confirmation useless, like I said before, I can be pretty certain a 2 confirmation litecoin transaction is secure, while a bitcoin transaction would probably still be 0 conf at this point. The time saving is immensely useful for services that require 3-6 confirmations. |
|
|
|
Litecoin is crap. Are there any alt cryptos that aren't? My opinion? No. The only thing that shows any real promise is Ripple. There is no "Litecoin development." They just took the hard work that went into the Bitcoin client and change a few superficial things like the hashing method and the rate of block generation. They didn't even address difficult issues like the maximum block size problem. Which, in Litecoin, is ten times worse than Bitcoin (since there's only a minute between blocks). The only reason that Litecoin has any interest or marginal value is because of Bitcoin's success; People who missed the Bitcoin boat are placing bets that they can get another chance if Litecoin skyrockets in value. Explain to me why litecoin max block size is "10 times worse" than bitcoin? litecoin has 4X more blocks, so it in fact has 4X more max size for the same amount of transactions. For example, if both BTC and LTC is doing the same amount of transactions. If Bitcoin average block size reach 1MB and hit the limit, Litecoin would still be at 250kb, far from hitting the limit. How is this considered "10 times worse"? |
|
|
|
My guess is that there's room for at least a few more similar competing currencies to thrive, re: LTC is silver to BTC as gold.
Litecoin is crap. Are there any alt cryptos that aren't? I assume Bitcoin is to remain the dominant digital currency due to the network effect, it doesn't make much sense that a copy like litecoin, which doesn't really add any extra features, can be successful. A complementary system like ripple may be worth investing in, or other systems which can be used on top of Bitcoin. Litecoin has a different mining algorithm, 4X larger block size, 4X faster confirmation time, 4X more divisible. I wouldn't call it "doesn't really add any extra features". Bitcoin is facing the problem of reaching block size limit, there wouldn't be a problem if Litecoin was used as silver(transactional currency) and Bitcoin was used as gold(reserve currency). |
|
|
|
...when you're not ignorant and have realized that Litecoin provides more usefulness than Bitcoin, but your dumb and old ass is in denial. Apparently, the whole world is in denial and you're a special beautiful snowflake who has discovered a treasure and now you're waiting for the rest of society to catch up:  It's true Bitcoin is 100X more popular than Litecoin right now, but Litecoin is in the stage where Bitcoin was in 2009-2010, so it's not really fair to compare interest like that. Litecoin interest has continued to grow, just like Bitcoin did in 2009-2010:  |
|
|
|
|
Same as the real stock market, valued by hope/dream/greed/fear
|
|
|
|
As someone who accepts zero confirmation transactions, I'm not really sold on the faster block rate being the killer app. For a similar level of security, you still need to wait for confirmations and with them coming so fast, you need to wait for more of them. I'm not exactly sure of the math but I think security is proporional to total hashes burying a block. A finney attack on LTC is still way cheaper than on BTC so maybe I'd trust $5 worth to a zero confirmation, $20 to 1 confirmatino. For Bitcoin I'd go $50-100 for zero confirmation and double that for 1 confirmation.
Nope that's completely false, the only thing that matters securitywise is the # of confirmations, not how fast. 6 confirmations in LTC is just as secure as 6 confirmations in BTC. If you don't believe it, try a double spend attack with a 2 confirmation LTC transaction (BTC would have 0 confirmation at this point), and see how far that gets you. |
|
|
|
|
btc-e.com, your best bet is buy Bitcoin at coinbase, then use the bitcoin to buy LTC on btc-e.com, because getting USD into btc-e is not as easy as coinbase (but it certainly can be done of course).
fee is 0.2% for any currency pair at btc-e.com
|
|
|
|
New member Roadtrain with a postcount of 10, most of them btc-e defending posts.... THINK
1: yes, it could be a fake address. buy WHY would you trust someone with SO MUCH MONEY who uses a fake phone and address?
2: If you are going to use a fake address, WHAT A COINCIDENCE, that he randomly picked the same fake address that the scammers used in the "perfect-cargo.net" scam?
No one in Russia register with a real phone and address dude, actually most people in the US don't do that either, I have 20 domains and all of them protected with privacy guard with a fake address pointing to my registrar. Registering with a real phone and address is asking for being scammed/spammed to death. Also BTC-E is operating a semi-illegal exchange, or at least a legal grey area exchange, since they don't do AML verification. So why would they want to post their real phone and address. |
|
|
|
PPCoin, TerraCoin, AND NovaCoin all more profitable to mine than LiteCoin. ^ I never thought I'd say that.  But only LiteCoin will still be around 1 year later. |
|
|
|
I mean the Ƀ was around $12 on november 28th. Now we are at more than twice the price and far from twice the difficulty. What is wrong?
The days of GPU mining are numbered: noone invests in new GPU rigs currently and the ASIC delivery is lagging. Ah ok, so it is the dying rate of GPUs. That makes sense. At least that was my experience with 4 out of 8 GPUs dying in 5 months. That's definitely not normal, what brand was your GPU? and were they overclocked? |
|
|
|
I can't tell the future -- I mine litecoin and hoard, been doing the same thing since release over a year ago. BTC difficulty is going up quite a bit because of ASICs; at some point GPU miners will either move to LTC or move on with their lives. If a lot of GPU miners move to LTC, then LTC price will probably skyrocket. If not, it won't. It's up to you, cryptocurrency prices are terribly erratic.
I don't really understand your logic, why would price skyrocket with more miners? difficulty follows price, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Ripples seem to be bootstrapped in that you have to have them to pay a transaction fee for a ripple transaction. That's it. All it's used for. Current transaction fee for a Ripple transaction is 1/10,000 of a ripple.
So, you need 300 ripples to start an account (why so many?) and 1 ripple for all the transactions you will be doing. Until there is sufficient transaction load to cause a higher transaction fee.
Am I missing something? I don't understand paying BTC for them at this point.
Ripple may be the coin for you if you: - Want to rely on trust nodes- Want a centralized currency that is given to people at random; imagine your bank down the street throwing money at whoever walked by on the sidewalk! - Want a network vulnerable to sybil attacks from bot nets that also expose validation nodes to DDoS attacks - Want a blockchain that contains transaction fees that go to the network creator rather than the userbase that supports its security and are based on the whim of the distributor? Ripple is more or less Solidcoin2 if Solidcoin2 were only mining by trust nodes instead of trust nodes and users and RealSolid was throwing money at everyone on the forum Except Ripple isn't a coin, but an exchange, pretty much the same as mtgox. You pay a fee to mtgox's admin per trade, yes? not much different from Ripple then. Ripple's fee is actually extremely cheap compared to mtgox. |
|
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of NVC, but let's be honest, how many "unsuspecting users" really exist? Do people buy a coin just because they see it on an exchange, without doing any research first?
They are not "unsuspecting", but really greedy speculators. There are tons of people investing in HYIP schemes, knowing they are HYIP. Also tons of people here play blatant pyramid based games. They are just betting on they will not be the last to hold the bag. |
|
|
|
What is the meaning and significance "days destroyed".
Thanks.
It's not bitcoin days-destroyed, it's bitcoin-days destroyed. Bitcoin-days is like a man-hour or a kilowatt-hour - it's a unit that measures the extent to which bitcoins are sitting in wallets without circulating. For instance, if 1BTC has remained in the same wallet for 100 days, that's 100 bitcoin-days, and sending that 1BTC to a new address after such a long time would "destroy" 100 bitcoin-days (because they transform into 1BTC that has stood still for 0 days = 0 bitcoin-days). 100BTC that were last moved 1 day ago would be the same. Thus, "Bitcoin-Days destroyed" is a metric of how much BTC is moving in the economy - especially BTC that is once again moving after having remained in storage for a long time. So it's a measure of velocity of BTC. Thanks. No it means old coins that hasn't moved for a long time, is moving now, I think mostly likely they are moving to sell. |
|
|
|
Do you just update your prices manually or is it based on MtGox?
I'm in the market for a 240-256 GB SSD, but I'm definitely not paying $260 for an Agility 4 when 250GB Samsung 840s pop on sale regularly for $160 or less.
Actually I just got a sandisk sandstorm extreme 240GB for $135 from buy.com on sale. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
