Looks vulnerable to me.  Give me the budget (or ability to get loans) of the USA government or a national bank and I could kill Bitcoin... money back guaranteed. Due to the economies of scale ASICs bring to the table, although the Bitcoin/Litecoin network is less vulnerable than it has been in the past, it is still rather vulnerable if someone were to throw a lot of money at attacking it. no. that's mighty talk from you there. first off, gubmints don't have unlimited resources for something like this. sure, they print money to save banks; but not all banks and not with unlimited funds. this is an entirely different animal w/o a sure outcome for them. a gubmint's mere entry into the asic market would set off not only alarms throughout the Bitcoin space but also jack the price of all asic components to the moon to the point where it would be prohibitively expensive for them to produce enough equipment to carry out such an attack, let alone get off the mark trying to do so. and we would find out about it ahead of time. wait times are a couple months at most high capacity chip makers. any sudden delay in delivery would call for investigation. it would be impossible for a gubmint to make such a huge asic order w/o ppl finding out and w/o chip makers jacking their prices to the moon. the gubmint would be competing with the likes of Intel and Apple for chip runs. then, there would be the political fallout, especially if they fail. try pissing off a few billionaires, like Branson or Ka-Shing, whose investment you'd be messing around with. you and/or a gubmint would end up in court in a nasty legal battle for damages. class action suits would be carried out by now wealthy early adopters. then, there are the technical out-maneuvers that could be introduced into the protocol after finding out about such a plan and a brief pause to implement them. a change could be made to SHA 516 as an example. and so what of a 51% attack that could be shutdown relatively immediately? there would be a temporary disruption of the network but then we would adapt and the gubmint would have wasted billions for nothing. no, i think we are in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium. |
|
|
|
It does not matter what Pos system is used for a Pos coin, they all are vulnerable to a social 51% attack.
In the case of nxt no attack is needed as its game set match from the start. Those Lithuanian guys who created nxt always had full control.
........... It doesn't matter what PoW algorithm is used for PoW coins, they are all vulnerable to 51% attacks. In the case of Bitcoin and Litecoin, no attack is needed as it was game set match from the start. Those ASIC manufacturers, governments, or banksters with very deep pockets always had full control. ...................... It is getting hard to tell FUD from honest opinion. So many PoS FUDsters... that's funny. i don't see any pool even close to 51% currently. ghash is at 29%. it appears the community has worked it out and w/o nary an attack. who's spreading FUD?:  The point was that these entities could gain control easily if they wanted to. My statement was just as credible as manfreds. The only reason why the early investors in Nxt don't attack the network is because they don't want to. The on.y reason why ASIC manufacturers, governments, or banksters don't attack Bitcoin/Litecoin is because so far they don't want to. You are smoking crack if you don't believe they have the money and ability to get 51% of the Bitcoin/Litecoin network of they really wanted it. and i think you are smoking crack by thinking they can do so. POW mining is in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium as far as i'm concerned. this is a subset of game theory: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579let ANY altcoin or any gubmint/bank try and match this level of worldwide support and security as derived from the ppl of all nations:  |
|
|
|
let ANY altcoin or gubmint/bank try and match this level of worldwide support and security as derived from the ppl of all nations: |
|
|
|
It does not matter what Pos system is used for a Pos coin, they all are vulnerable to a social 51% attack.
In the case of nxt no attack is needed as its game set match from the start. Those Lithuanian guys who created nxt always had full control.
........... It doesn't matter what PoW algorithm is used for PoW coins, they are all vulnerable to 51% attacks. In the case of Bitcoin and Litecoin, no attack is needed as it was game set match from the start. Those ASIC manufacturers, governments, or banksters with very deep pockets always had full control. ...................... It is getting hard to tell FUD from honest opinion. So many PoS FUDsters... that's funny. i don't see any pool even close to 51% currently. ghash is at 29%. it appears the community has worked it out and w/o nary an attack. who's spreading FUD?: |
|
|
|
They surely created that option for people pretty quickly.
They should have done nothing and just stayed on the sidelines.
Why? Options are a good thing for sure, right? no, the right way to release a patch like that would be to first get a community consensus so that any which move they made would be accepted by the community in general. assuming the consensus was no rollback, then the core devs would not have wasted time coding the patch and would've been perceived as being more sensitive to the entire community's wishes as opposed to being manipulable to political and economic interests of key members only like Bter. now, i question the motives of the core devs and whether or not they truly understand the principles of a community and free market currency. this also introduces confusion as to what the hell they will do the NXT-time an issue like this arises. having a "vote" like this is not the same as gaining consensus. |
|
|
|
This chart keeps amazing me. It's just... I mean... where will it end?
after Bitcoin takes over the world. |
|
|
|
SLW fails to maintain clearance of resistance while silver continues to collapse. Bad sign for metals in general:  |
|
|
|
Yes you are correct I skimmed it. Sorry with as many posts I read every day I am bound to misread a part of one at some point. Forgive me.  You're forgiven. Just to be clear, despite that fact that you're profoundly and dangerously wrong about litecoin, I respect a lot of what you say and the promotion you've done for the bitcoin community in general (with the exception of the multi-year litecoin distraction).
You obviously did not address the word "fight" and how Bitcoin did that.
Nothing new? LOL yes please ignore the fact that you obviously said that Bitcoin fought a battle.
As if it has a conscience.
I would say that is pretty new information in our little debate about comparing Bitcoin and Litecoin and useful metric of comparing them on how "successful" they are. Hence why I said your argument was broken given using that statement.
Ok, seems like irrelevant semantics, so I'll rephrase: PEOPLE who saw the advantages and potentially world-changing nature of a scarce, global, distributed, electronic, frictionless money had to FIGHT from SCRATCH to get many humans to consider the entire concept more than a laughing stock. This seems pretty obvious and undebatable to me... Many former naysayers/skeptics in finance, politics, tech, econ, etc, have come around on BITCOIN.
Full Disclosure: I was one of the few who bought LTC when they were ~$0.005 each. So yes I would know how to call things pretty well (i.e. that it was a bargain back then) even when there was the same type of statements about LTC that are being spouted today (i.e. "Litecoin is dying" blah blah).
Congrats. Your misunderstanding of the overall crypto-ecosystem, and the harm you're doing to everyone, including yourself (ultimately), has luckboxed into a nice payoff for the moment. I should potentially not say "luckboxed", since you may have an easier time understanding the flawed logic of bandwaggoners and therefore realized early that litecoin was likely to obtain an irrational (judged by longrun fundamentals) temporary success.
The obvious bias to Litecoin that some here have is fine as they are entitled to their opinion but it is somewhat funny when the same things happen to Bitcoin in terms of price suppression those same things are ignored.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Just so everyone is aware... When bitcoin was 2.75 years old it was ~$4-$6. and When Litecoin was 2.75 years old it too was ~$4-$6... So when I say that comparing them using a time metric of life span is less skewed than comparing them in today's terms (as if Litecoin is even competing against Bitcoin ...which it is not in my view)....I actually do have a point... Given I asked the original question: ...
Where was Bitcoin when it was at 2.75 years old?
...
That's still an invalid way to look at things for the reasons I've outlined (in several different semantic forms now).
Did you even look up your facts before trying to debunk my thought process and argument with your "Bitcoin fought that battle" statement?
Not sure where you think I put forth any incorrect facts... Anyways, only time will tell, so how about this... I'll bet you 100 LTC to 1 BTC that LTC will be trading for < 0.01 BTC 5 years from now. That is, I'll give you 100 LTC on August 19th 2019 if the price of LTC is >= 0.01 BTC, and you give me 1 BTC if the price of LTC is < 0.01 BTC. Interested? Cypher can escrow, if he's willing. don't take it, Noah. Noah, please make sure you step back from your business involvement as the leading seller of physical Litecoins as you view this debate. we all know you've done tremendous work in that arena and i am the proud owner of a set of LTC you so generously gave me. but it's quite possible that the entire LTC arena can go caput like we've been warning if indeed our theories of a one currency to rule all plays out. don't catch a falling knife. |
|
|
|
1 oz Argor-Heraeus Gold Bars just $17.99 per bar over spot! on sale, baby!!! woot!!! |
|
|
|
are we supposed to be impressed? |
|
|
|
plot with log scale, seriously
why? i like linear scale. ok, no problem. its the same data. however, i think log scale is more informative as a viewing tool. for ex, you will more clearly see that the hashrate growth rate has been dropping since dec. i understand the math. personally though, i think your point casts an unnecessarily negative slant to the situation. just yinging a bit to your yang that's cool |
|
|
|
plot with log scale, seriously
why? i like linear scale. ok, no problem. its the same data. however, i think log scale is more informative as a viewing tool. for ex, you will more clearly see that the hashrate growth rate has been dropping since dec. i understand the math. personally though, i think your point casts an unnecessarily negative slant to the situation. |
|
|
|
shorts wavering. USD leverage set to ramp?:  |
|
|
|
Continuation:  |
|
|
|
|
no, keep selling everyone.
to me.
|
|
|
|
According to Coinmarketcap.com, 8 of the top 20 coins by market cap cannot be mined. I would say that Proof-of-Work has substantial competition from other proven mechanisms to secure the shared transaction ledger.
how could you conclude that when all their share prices have been shrinking much faster than Bitcoin's, they have barely any consumer support, and they are all but a speck in comparative and absolute market cap? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
