I don't hate LTC, I know stating how useless it is makes me sound like I'm a hater or jelly but I don't care, it was useless compared to BTC at 0.007 and still useless at 0.02. Most cryptonote coins beats LTC any day in my book.
I don't think that it has to do with hate, or direct/indirect usability compare of any alt to the other(s). I think it's about maturity. LTC has had its time for quite a long time now. It has fast transactions (compared to BTC), high volume, relatively easier to buy and distribute vs the XMR. OTOH, XMR is superior tech-wise, but that doesn't render LTC useless. Plus the fact that every single exchange out there supports it! So there you have it. Maturity is something we have to wait to happen with XMR. After that happens, it will reach its righteous place. Kazuki49 sounds like a jelly hater with an inferiority complex when he, in contradiction to the market and my 'best hedge' analysis, emphasizes LTC's supposed uselessness, while ignoring the reality that XMR/CN have (at present) even less utility. You can't usefully compare a one year old baby with a four year old. The former just cries and poops, while the latter can walk, talk, and use the Amazon Fire stick to stream Simpsons and Gravity Falls (cartoons that old Uncle iCEBREAKER also enjoys). I've actually bought stuff with LTC. I've yet to do the same with XMR. That's partly because of remorse from selling too early/cheap, but still...  xmr.to works well to buy things from anyone that takes btc Sure, if I wanted to part with any of my precious XMR. But I don't.  |
|
|
|
You people are getting vicious and inane. Name calling like a pack of 8 year olds?  I know right? If you're going to start referring to Bitcoin as " Cripplecoin" /r/buttcoin is over ==> there. |
|
|
|
I don't hate LTC, I know stating how useless it is makes me sound like I'm a hater or jelly but I don't care, it was useless compared to BTC at 0.007 and still useless at 0.02. Most cryptonote coins beats LTC any day in my book.
I don't think that it has to do with hate, or direct/indirect usability compare of any alt to the other(s). I think it's about maturity. LTC has had its time for quite a long time now. It has fast transactions (compared to BTC), high volume, relatively easier to buy and distribute vs the XMR. OTOH, XMR is superior tech-wise, but that doesn't render LTC useless. Plus the fact that every single exchange out there supports it! So there you have it. Maturity is something we have to wait to happen with XMR. After that happens, it will reach its righteous place. Kazuki49 sounds like a jelly hater with an inferiority complex when he, in contradiction to the market and my 'best hedge' analysis, emphasizes LTC's supposed uselessness, while ignoring the reality that XMR/CN have (at present) even less utility. You can't usefully compare a one year old baby with a four year old. The former just cries and poops, while the latter can walk, talk, and use the Amazon Fire stick to stream Simpsons and Gravity Falls (cartoons that old Uncle iCEBREAKER also enjoys). I've actually bought stuff with LTC. I've yet to do the same with XMR. That's partly because of remorse from selling too early/cheap, but still... |
|
|
|
Sounds like you are mixed up in it too somehow. And it is all news to me, looks like the court action is current so not so much 'rehash old gossip' as a necessary catharsis. I'm keeping the investigation to the tabled facts so not sure what 'defamatory conclusions' you refer to.
Going on the public court documents it is quite damning for cypherdoc the payments made for "endorsements" and that there was hardware that was never delivered to forum members I'm assuming. Which is the height of hypocrisy given his crazed defamatory "conflict of interest" LeBronning of core devs and personal slurs towards me.
People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Any cudgel bashing is of his own making, he had fair warning I don't put up with that nonsense.
It isn't news that Dr. Frappe was a compensated spokesman. Have you even read his HF endorsement thread's OP? The public court documents are only "damning" in the jaundiced eyes of those who have already pre-judged the case in favor of the plaintiff. If you listen to the hearing, Judge Montali is *not* buying the 'ZOMG look how much he was paid per post' argument. The 'LeBron' wisecrack came up in that context, as the judge and attorneys bantered, amused by the idiotic media practice of manufacturing outrage via dividing sports stars' salaries by some arbitrary figure such as number of games/pitches/hits/baskets/goals/points. I'm as disgusted as anyone by Dr. Frappe's accusations of core dev obstuctionism-for-profit, but his demonstrated technical incompetence is a much better (and genuinely self-inflicted) way to destroy his credibility than an undecided longshot Hail Mary lawsuit. |
|
|
|
ok, i'm not getting the bolded part. this graph shows 37 MB worth of unconf tx's, no?:
No clue, no node I have access to is seeing that much-- they may have turned off the minfee rules (not unreasonable for a metrics thing)... Even given that, again, 37MB doesn't explain your swap. yeah, i had noticed that. strange... Maybe a bloated swap file is a surprise Easter egg 'feature' of XT nodes? As I said weeks ago, good luck getting BTC core devs to help fix it when your Gavinsista troll fork goes haywire.  |
|
|
|
Does anyone have information about how much actual mining by customers was done by HashFast gear? (If any.)
And were they running the old 'factory test' mining before shipping to customers boondoggle?
HF shipped all Batch 1 and 2 customers' machines. Unlike Cointerra's (also late-shipping) machines, HF's ran at the advertised 400GH/s spec. Plenty of mining was done by their gear. Icedrill is still mining with HF ASICs. Early equipment (including firmware) was not sufficiently tested and had stability issues. Later production, subjected to rigorous QA, was much more reliable. The ridiculous 'secret mining' canard was brought up by cedivad, only to be promptly debunked. I'm surprised and disappointed someone of your caliber would, without even being aware of these basic facts, rehash old gossip and leap to defamatory conclusions which have been soundly rejected in court. As for the case of Greedy Lawyers vs cypherdoc, Judge Montali is highly skeptical of their flimsy claims and literally mocked/laughed at them on several occasions. I know you're pissed off at cypherdoc for being an annoying Gavin fanboy lately, but these unfounded rumors are not the best cudgel with which to bash him. |
|
|
|
i didn't say this full block spam attack we're undergoing wasn't affecting my node at_all. sure, i'm in swap, b/c of the huge #unconf tx's but it hasn't shut down or stressed my nodes to any degree. one of the arguments by Cripplecoiners was that these large block attacks would shut full nodes down from destabilization resulting in centralization. i'm not seeing that.
The 1MB sanity check/safety limit is the reason you aren't seeing nodes destabilized by "huge #unconf tx's." We would be "seeing that" if gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@google.mil had gotten their way and successfully rammed through their poorly researched, hilariously ill-conceived 20MB proposal. Luckily, Team Gavincoin got fukkin' r3kt exactly as I foretold:  |
|
|
|
LN which doesn't exist yet and will arrive far too late to help with scaling when blocks are (nearer to) averaging 1MB.
The 1MB is proving a magnet for spammers as every day the average block size creeps up and makes their job easier. A lot of people have vested interest in seeing Bitcoin crippled. We should not provide them an ever-widening attack vector.
BTC blocks are always going to tend towards full because demand is infinite and supply is not. Get used to it. The Lightening Network will exist in due course. Meanwhile, the Litecoin Network is entirely capable of absorbing excess transactions should BTC be pushed over capacity (whatever that means...where is JR when we need him to jump up and down demanding 'overcapacity' be rigidly defined in objective metrics?). Don't fear spammers; they provide incentives to optimize. Stop fretting about people desiring to see Bitcoin crippled; their attacks should be welcomed because antifragile systems grow stronger when, and only when, presented with adversity. That min fee at 0.0005 is 14 cents, and most users consider this to be way too high, especially if BTC goes back to $1000 and this becomes 50 cents. I kicked off a poll about tx fees and 55% of users don't want to pay more than 1 cent, 80% of users think 5 cents or less is enough of a fee. Stop the presses, the Free Shit Army wants moar free shit! So what? It costs much more than 14 cents worth of electricity/equipment/labor to process a BTC tx. The block reward has done its job, and it's time to start the process of weaning the ecosystem (IE economy) off such giant subsidies by making each BTC tx do more to earn its keep. So, in 2010 Satoshi was forward looking, when the 1MB was several orders of magnitude larger than block sizes.. Yet today we are no longer forward-looking or care about peak volumes, and get ready to fiddle while Rome burns.  If you could calm down and stop exaggerating, that would be great. |
|
|
|
my reference to Peters argument above aid nothing about mempool; I was talking about block verification times. You're obfuscation again. In your message to me you argued that f2pool was SPV mining becuase "the" mempool was big. I retored that their mempool has nothing to do with it, and besides they can make their mempool as small as they want. You argued that the mempools were the same, I pointed out that they were not. You responded claiming my responses was inconsistent with the points about verification delay; and I then responsed that no-- those comments were about verification delay, not mempool. The two are unrelated. You seem to have taken as axiomatic that mempool == verification delay, a position which is technically unjustified but supports your preordaned conclusions; then you claim I'm being inconsistent when I simply point out that these things are very different and not generally related. Yes, that's exactly what happened. It's very kind of gmax to so diligently care for our enfeebled but honored elder by chewing his food, changing his diapers, wiping the drool from his chin, and forgiving his inability to form new memories (much less understand new concepts). Gmax is a saint for lovingly patting Dr. Frappe on the head when he gets cranky, instead of reaching for the Thorazine. It's possible to construct a contrived block today that takes many minutes to verify, even within the 1MB limit; though a miner that did that would mostly be hurting themselve unless they had some arrangement with most of the hashpower to accept their block.
I'm fascinated by the trolling and research possibilities of such 'contrived' blocks. Generating them seems less expensive than the brute force high-fee crapflood attacks recently used by the Gavinistas, but it isn't in their interest to publicize them as they contraindicate their desired (>)>1MB blocks. In order to optimize their contrivance, one would have to understand how best to exploit the weaknesses of Createnewblock's existing inefficiencies. OTOH, being able to generate such extra-obnoxious blocks provides an excellent tool for testing proposed optimizations. |
|
|
|
Rather amazing that he still is posting. For starters, his counsel should have advised him to stop posting here.
Frap.doc is the world's leading expert on everything; he is the LeBron of Dunning-Kruger. What makes you think he'd respect some dumb old lawyer's advice, when he refuses to swallow basic technical facts charitably spoon-fed to him by several of the world's top 10 Bitcoin experts? His saving grace is that the absurd, pro-forma, borderline barratry lawsuit against him is being laughed out of court; the bankruptcy lawyers just did it to look busy and thus justify their fees and the endless process. |
|
|
|
since small pools can also connect to the relay network, and i assume they do, there is no reason to believe that large miners can attack small miners with large blocks.
Basic misunderstanding there how can that be? mining pools all use a full node around which they coordinate their mining. all full nodes are relatively in sync with their mempools
There is no requirement that mempools be in sync, -- in fact, they're not and the whole purpose of the blockchain is to synchronize nodes. it's statistically unlikely that full blocks today represent the magical level of "large" blocks that Satoshi set 6 yrs ago. the problems we are having with the forks are a result of the defensive tactics being taken from those full blocks.
Almost none of the blocks have been 1MB, the issues arise before then. The more gmax patiently ELI5s basic Bitcoin 101 to Frap.doc, the more Frap.doc looks like a five year old. |
|
|
|
Given the difference in PoW (SHA vs SCrypt), the case could be made that LTC is less of a clone of BTC than XMR is of BCN.  Of course it was. Nowadays the difference in LTC codebase vs. BTC is less than XMR vs. BCN, due to XMR being almost completely rewritten by our glorious and vigilant devs. It's fascinating to watch the market, by offering near-zero interest rates for borrowing, all but dare someone to short XMR.
TrueCryptonaire thinks this is a problem because "if there will be a dump, there will be no buyers (shorters closing their positions)." Maybe this is what's we're seeing today?
It will find buyers, it's only a question of "FOMO" vs. "greed to get'em cheaper". I have somewhat predicted 0.0015 but the progress towards that value is so slow that our efforts to find new money might kick in sooner Since the time LTC forked from BTC (or Tenebrix, if you are a try-hard pedant), BTC has been substantially changed. But developments post hoc don't change the initial clone vs fork distinction. The point is LTC is the best BTC hedge for a number of reasons, as the markets have been saying for years. Looks like you don't even know LTC history, its a clone of Tenebrix without the premine and thats it no new code. Monero code has been rewritten plus new features are on the way, LTC dev officially said it doesn't need new features, if you want to compare a Cryptonote coin to LTC it is Dashcoin not Monero. But please keep defending LTC on a XMR thread  and btw if there a coin that "hurts" BTC market it is LTC because it offers absolutely nothing hedge-wise as the codebase is 98% compatible it simply sucks money that would otherwise go to BTC, but XMR is a new paradigm that gives new meaning to Bitcoin transparent ledger. Looks like you don't even know the difference between a clone and a fork. Tenebrix has 5 minute blocks, LTC has 2.5. Just like XMR halved BCN's block time when it forked. All I did was point out LTC is no more of a BTC (or Tenebrix, if you are a try-hard pedant) clone than XMR is a BCN clone. If that's "defending" LTC, well...sorry to interrupt your anti-LTC Two Minutes Hate. I know it's hard watching LTC moon while XMR slumps, but there's no need to be all bitchy and jelly. BTW, Tacotime and I were tweaking GPUs to mine LTC years ago. Where you there too? PM old handle or GTFO noob! |
|
|
|
Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
No. In other words, cypherdoc is clueless about how Bitcoin works. Moar like the LeBron of Lasik, am I right? |
|
|
|
Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.
As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.
In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future. To me.
Exactly this. Intentionally or not, 1MB turned out to be a serendipitous choice. Now it has ossified and is ready for the next layers to be built on its solid foundation. I favor Adam Backamoto's extension block proposal. The 1MB blocksize limit reminds me of the old 640k limit in DOS. Rather than destroy Window's interoperability with the rich/valuable legacy of 8088 based software, that limit was extended via various hacks sublime software engineering. Before resorting to the nuclear option of a contentious hard fork, we should attempt to achieve the desired result with soft forks. |
|
|
|
i hope ppl here can discern the fact that most or all of what the Cripplecoin ppl have to say involves ad hominems and iCEBlow. not to mention the obfuscation that attempts to link my dispute with the HF lawyers to the block size debate and Blockstreams financial conflict of interest in core dev.
These days, the only difference between you and the Buttcoiners is that you say "Cripplecoin" instead. You're the one who hired the guy that under oath represented you as the LeBron of BTC. When you aggressively and egregiously misunderstand the flow and causation of tx broadcasting from clients to pools to block inclusion and then on to verification, of course we're going to have fun with that amusing apparent contradiction (however unfair it may be to confuse athletic, financial, and technical expertise). If you don't want to be called LeBron until the day Lord Satoshi moves His Holy Coins, I suggest apologizing for accusing the core devs (who write the free code you run) of impropriety/malfeasance/obstructionism/etc. it's is MUCH more likely these SPV mining attacks are a direct result of full blocks. More SPV mining, which is not an attack but rather explicitly permitted/encouraged by the protocol and arguably beneficial, is the result of larger (not "full") blocks. Even Peter, your fellow Gavinista, has tried explaining you are full of shit, to no avail: 2. Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?
...I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated). What's your excuse for ignoring Peter's attempt to inject you with sanity? He's not a Cripplecoiner, nor did he mention ad hom/HF/iceblow. Can't you just man up and admit being wrong? Come on LeBron, the ball is in your court! |
|
|
|
The problem with the 'hurr durr LTC is *nothing but* a clone of BTC amirite' position is that by the same logic XMR is *nothing but* a BCN clone.
BCN was not fair launch. BTC is generally perceived as a fair launch. It looks a little bearish on XMR/BTC btw. The rally on BTC/USD has pressured the XMR/BTC rate and it does not help confidence that the big wall was sold into in 190k. I believe there is a chance that BTC will nudge upwards and it will be interesting to see what XMR does. It is convincing to see that XMR seems to be somewhat priced in USD despite trading in BTC. I envision that this offers protection in case BTC suffers a big hit. Fair vs unfair launch is an issue separate from the question of whether a new coin is *nothing but* a clone of another. A fork is not a clone. LTC haters intentionally conflate the terms to bash LTC using BTC, just as XMR haters do using BCN. Given the difference in PoW (SHA vs SCrypt), the case could be made that LTC is less of a clone of BTC than XMR is of BCN. It's fascinating to watch the market, by offering near-zero interest rates for borrowing, all but dare someone to short XMR. TrueCryptonaire thinks this is a problem because "if there will be a dump, there will be no buyers (shorters closing their positions)." Maybe this is what's we're seeing today? I wonder how many people will jump on the XMR train once LTC starts to run out of steam.
Not many. LTC whales swim in oceans far from landlocked Lake Polo. |
|
|
|
2. Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?
...I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).
Exactly. Dr. Frappuccino is letting his deranged, unreasonable hatred and fear of 1MB blocks color his thinking beliefs about completely unrelated (or, at best, merely "correlated") matters. I'm shocked to discover how little he actually understands about technical issues on which he has such strong, stridently/frequently expressed opinions. As Gmax was just saying, the end result of this trend is to burn up whatever is left of his tattered credibility. As miners have created larger blocks F2Pool expirenced high orphaning (>4% according to them); they responded by adding software to mine without transfering or verifying blocks to avoid delays related to transfering and processing block data. Contrary to your claim-- the blocksize limit stems the bleeding here. Their issue is that large blocks take more time to transfer/handle and that they're falling behind as a result. Making blocks _bigger_ would not help this problem, it would do the _opposite_. If a miner wanted to avoid any processing of transaction backlog they'd simply set their minimum fee high and they'd never even mempool the large backlog.
Reasonable minds can differ on the relative importance of difference considerations, but when you're falling all over yourself to describe evidence against your position as support of it-- redefining F2pools crystal clear and plain descption of "large blocks" as their source of problems with the technically inexplicable "full" that you think supports your position, it really burns up whatever credibility you had left. That you can get away with it in this thread without a loud wall of "WTF" just shows what a strange echochamber it has become.
The trouble with our Gavinsta friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. |
|
|
|
Why isn't monero participating in the LTC revaluation ?
Four year old LTC acts as the primary safety valve and backup for BTC. It is the best hedge against BTC failure and/or ascendancy. IE, BTC failing would be great for LTC but so would BTC enjoying great success.LTC has a mature worldwide ecosystem and the resultant ton of volume, wallets, translations, fiat exchanges, etc. Plus it was invented by a very reputable Chinese American dude whose brother happens to run a large exchange back in the old country. One year old XMR is still in the pupal stage, snug in its chrysalis, but growing into a magnificent butterfly. In bold not at all true. What would kill BTC? A catastrophic technical bug of some sort. Complete loss of confidence in blockchain tech. What else? LTC is BTC codebase. If BTC fails, LTC fails. There is no hedge. It's just market games. Do you remember the time LTC spiked as BTC suffered a chain fork (IE, failed)? That will probably happen again. LTC uses a different PoW, targets faster (far less controversially sized) blocks, and its codebase had drifted from current BTC. The problem with the 'hurr durr LTC is *nothing but* a clone of BTC amirite' position is that by the same logic XMR is *nothing but* a BCN clone. |
|
|
|
One year old XMR is still in the pupal stage, snug in its chrysalis, but growing into a magnificent butterfly.
I really hope so. As block reward decreases, so do the number of ~free coins dumped by claymore/yvg1900, botnets, and BOFH sysadmins. |
|
|
|
How is the LMDB testing gong?
I am confused - I thought that the blockchain db upgrade has been release a few months ago? It was, it's great. But the Official Binary needs to be perfect, so just enjoy the cheap coins!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
