And you're wrong, again.

There will be a point in the future when no more bitcoins are rewarded for blocks - in other words no more currency inflation. Is that true or false?

The answer is true, but if that's the case then how can your statement also be true? It can't. You said it's the rate at which the currency supply grows that's relevant to its scarcity. In other words, if there is no currency growth (as will happen with Bitcoin eventually) then there is no relevance for scarcity. That is completely false.

There will be 21 million bitcoins in existence for the world, and no more available. That limit makes them scarce. Currency supply growth rates have nothing to do with it at that point.

amincd, you seem to be arguing not from an objective view, but one with an admitted motivation. You feel it necessary to proactively work against market adoption of Litecoin.

I read your entire response, and feel very tempted to (again) counter most everything you said. However, I don't have the time or interest in drawing this out even longer.

Instead I'll focus in on one particular point you made to try and illustrate why you and I may always have large disagreement.


The bold emphasis is mine.

You just said fundamentally the amount of bitcoin is not extremely scarce because bitcoins can be divided to 8 decimal places.

I'm not sure how to explain to you what you're missing, and why that statement is wrong.

Yes, actually bitcoins are in fact extremely scarce when compared to billions of people potentially using them. Remove all the other alt-coins from the picture for a moment, and say there is only Bitcoin with its 21 million coin limit. It is true you can divide each and every one of those 21 million bitcoins into fractions, but what you cannot do is come up with more total whole bitcoins.

That means if you go to a store that will accept bitcoins for payment then your wealth can never be diminished by someone that adds more units with no value to the system. Whether a shopkeeper wants to label product pricing as 1 BTC or 1000 mBTC is irrelevant since mathematically those are exactly equal. However, what you must understand is adding zeros to the 'mBTC' labeling doesn't bring any more actual bitcoins into existence.

By whom? By me?

Please point to one thing I've ever said about Litecoin that is hype and not factual. I've said that Litecoin has 4x faster block times than Bitcoin, and this can be preferable to many users in many cases. I don't think that's false. I've also said Litecoin using a different algorithm can be beneficial if Bitcoin's breaks or vice versa. I also believe that is true, because once you have a large economy in motion it's very damaging for all transactions to suddenly need to halt. If there is only Bitcoin and nothing else then if Bitcoin ever fails for any reason, whether technical, or corruption, or whatever else, then it means severe global economic damage to all that use cryptocurrency (since there is only Bitcoin).


Again, when have I ever said Scrypt is GPU proof? For that matter please link directly to where anyone said that. They may have, but I'm not going to believe that simply because you said it.

What I think is more likely is you have a misunderstanding of why Scrypt was chosen for Litecoin.

Scrypt is designed to raise the resource demands of the algorithm making the size and the cost of a hardware implementation much more expensive, and therefore limiting the amount of parallelism an attacker can use. Specifically, the algorithm is designed to use a large amount of memory. There is a significant trade off in speed in order to get rid of the large memory requirements. I'm paraphrasing here from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt

Such a trade off often exists in computer algorithms: you can increase speed at the cost of using more memory, or decrease memory requirements at the cost of performing more operations and taking longer. The idea behind scrypt is to deliberately make this trade off costly in either direction.

Ultimately this means mining litecoins is done with a different efficiency for GPUs, FPGAs and ASICS than mining bitcoins. This doesn't mean these systems can't mine litecoins effectively. It only says they do so with a different efficiency, which is the point.


That is your statement. Is it a fact? I don't think so. In fact, I know it's not, because I personally have experienced the beneficial effect of having LTC confirmed quicker as compared to BTC when I transacted LTC. Are you saying I wasn't a real use case?



Have you ever heard the expression time is money? Do you know where that comes from? It's because at any given time having access to money at one point can have a different value than having access to the same amount at some other point. For example BTC exchange rates fluctuate. Some cryptocurrency users trade coins daily trying to make a profit. If their coins can't be confirmed at some location before they have access to trade them when and where they want to it can cost them real money.


Who said they did? Again, link to the problematic claims you cite.


What do you mean "reduce the maximum level"? Are you suggesting there is some cap for the total computing resources Litecoin can use?


No it's not. A block chain, any block chain, is only as secure from 51% attacks as the amount of resources it takes on average to outperform the honest network. That's true of Bitcoin and all proof of work only block chains. All of Litecoins 2.5 minute blocks now are far more secure than  Bitcoin's blocks when it was only Satoshi and a few others (like Hal Finney) mining Bitcoin. Also note that combined proof of work and proof of stake coins like Novacoin (which I also support) add another dimension to the 51% attack issue.


Well which is it? Above you said 2.5 minute block times have very little effect in real use-cases.


I'm not sure if you're aware that amount of users/nodes, hashrate, and amount of supporting services/software for any block chain including Bitcoin can change. Again, when it was only Satoshi and Hal Finney mining Bitcoin in 2009 how much of the above support did it have?


Here again you're saying a lot about claims made but linking to nothing. I'll be more inclined to think you have a legitimate gripe about hype if you can link to something.


I don't believe a reset of everyone's wealth to zero for protocol changes is wise or welcome either. I believe in upgrading Bitcoin's protocol when possible too.


Is that a fact or your opinion? I mean the part about being less useful in almost every use case? I believe it's only your opinion.


No I'm not. I understand a market has differences of opinion. That's why I'm spending significant time in this written exchange with you. It's also the reason there are buy versus sell actions on exchanges.


It's true I can't say that for the entire market, but I didn't. Like I said above people within a market can (and will) have differences of opinion. However, market pressure will usually result in some action or another. I'm saying market pressure can be the reason Litecoin will be more of a success than it is already.


Not if those investors also hold the other coins.


No it's not. If you think it is then sell me a bitcoin for $1.00.


Creation of alt-coins doesn't automatically mean adoption of them. Have you any idea how many alt-coins there are now?  More than you can count on two hands.


I had similar thinking at first. I didn't always support Litecoin. When it was announced I probably felt a bit like you do now towards it, as an unnecessary entrant to the scene. I later came to believe an ecosystem with only Bitcoin is the real danger. There is too much that can go wrong. Everything would have to go perfectly, and history has shown that usually isn't the case when it comes to Bitcoin.


Again, there is already far more than Bitcoin on the scene. What you don't seem to appreciate is that the majority of them don't have traction. Can't you see things appear to be progressing more closely to what I predict than you do?


How in the world do you decide which point in time is the right one to invalidate transactions? You're saying a much better way to create a Bitcoin alternative is an intentionally disastrous hard economic fork?


Not if you received those 50 BTC for a payment after the fork cut off for valid transactions.


That can happen too. In fact I said the market was bigger than myself and my detractors too in the thread where I first proposed supporting Litecoin as a solution to the Bitcoin foundation.


I didn't say the code wasn't 'Bitcoin technology'. I said all code doesn't belong only to something called Bitcoin. If you think it does you need to become familiar with what open source means.

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

This is the reason I feel alt-coins are necessary. You're never going to be able to gain enough consensus on any given protocol change to do them smoothly (therefore not at all) once adoption reaches a certain point. There will be too many opinions preferring different routes to go. I made this realization (about not gaining consensus) during the uproar over the announcement of a potentially power consolidating Bitcoin foundation.


That's not hype. Litecoin having a faster block time is a fact.


You'll never successfully control a truly free market, which is why they are so powerful and why I love that Bitcoin depends on it. What I don't think you understand is that whether or not Mt.Gox adds Litecoin matters little to Litecoin's success now. Litecoin has IMO reached a critical mass of adoption to be successful in the long run, providing nothing kills it (or Bitcoin) like some hashing flaw or something else unforeseen. Going against market wishes to add Litecoin exchange support would only provide more opportunity for exchanges that did. Eventually the market would get what it wants provided the free market continues without being stifled.


Yes, I agree changing the hashing algorithm is one case where we might have a successful protocol change with a user base even at global scale. However, it would still be hard (disagreements on which algo to switch to, etc.) and likely cause messy economic disruption, which was more my point.


I agree with the first part. However, I do care about a limit on coin supply. As long as that limit is measured in the millions for a global user base of 7 billion I don't have much concern.


Like I said before you can't increase Bitcoin above 21 million coins. Not every user that holds bitcoins will hold litecoins and vice versa. I do of course believe there will be lots of overlap in user bases, but technically your bitcoins would still be subject to a 21 million total limit.


That's true, but like I said before the total limit on globally accepted cryptocurrency I believe will be measured in the millions, which is extremely scarce.


I agree. That's why I said it was critical to start making Litecoin a viable Bitcoin market competitor before Bitcoin got too far ahead, and I began promoting LTC as part of my solution to the Bitcoin foundation when it was at $0.04.


Perhaps those who don't yet see things as I do might, but they will be ultimately overruled by the market.


I believe that's true, but also that the level of acceptance at a global scale will be limited to only a few coins, the reason being spinoffs must significantly add value or have any traction quickly killed by other spinoffs.


What I meant was there is no such thing as 'Bitcoin technology' that belongs only to something called Bitcoin.

I was one of the ones that vehemently protested the foundation when it was announced. I don't think the community has mixed feelings about the good the foundation can do and important role it might play, for example managing things like the Bitcoin trademark. Rather there has been concern about potential for consolidated power and influence which goes against the decentralized ideology of Bitcoin.

For the record I think the foundation is a good idea. My concern for unchecked potential power they might gain has been quelled by the fact the market now has viable alternatives (like Litecoin) to express dissatisfaction with Bitcoin. The free market when it has choices acts as a good strict regulator.

Actually, there are an estimated 10 billion ounces of gold which would be around 100 times more than BTC/LTC combined.

Let's say 1 ounce of gold is now $1,000. That means BTC/LTC valued on par with gold would be around $100,000 per unit. Of course, some people believe gold could/should actually be worth $10,000 or more considering its scarcity as compared to fiat currency like dollars.

A never ending stream of alt-coins has already happened. The majority of them are either dead or have value measured so low as not to be taken seriously.

Really, Bitcoin spinoffs were seen far ahead of time. I was never bothered by their possibility, even before I supported Litecoin (even before it existed), because I knew there were some things spinoffs couldn't easily duplicate. That's why they are permissible without undermining the entire concept.

In case you don't know Bitcoin's code is open source. It's not proprietary. It's designed so that anyone can view, use, copy or alter it for free. The same goes for Litecoin, and in fact something similar happened to Litecoin called FeatherCoin. The fact that the code can be largely used as is speaks to how good the original design is.


"Swapping" something out, like the hashing algorithm, isn't like flipping some switch. Any protocol change in Bitcoin is inherently hard, and gets harder the larger the group is which uses Bitcoin because there are more opinions about what change should be made, if any at all, and how and when to go about it. Indeed I don't see much chance for any successful protocol change once Bitcoin reaches a near global user base. Protocol changes wouldn't be impossible, but I'd say extremely difficult.



No we don't need to preserve and protect the value of bitcoins. That's not how a free market works. The free market will assign the value where it should be.



No you don't get it. A dollar is equal to 100 pennies. That doesn't make the dollars in your pocket worth less. Only more whole dollars in the money supply does that.


No it doesn't mean that. You can't inflate Bitcoin's money supply, nor Litecoin's, and the two are not the same money supply. Now what you can do is increase the total cryptocurrency money supply. However, that has already happened. There are a lot more cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin and Litecoin. And that creation hasn't ended, I assure you.


No I don't think that. Like I said above there will be other new coins regardless to what you or I say. However, those new coins while being able to duplicate the code of Bitcoin or Litecoin can't as easily duplicate their user base. That's the key.


I understand your fear, but I believe it's unwarranted. As I describe above the inflation of cryptocurrency is inevitable as the code is open source. However, that doesn't mean every unit of cryptocurrency created has value.


That's true, but I don't believe there will be much more than Bitcoin and Litecoin accepted at a global scale; that means a total money supply measured in millions, not trillions like what the world is used to now.


Like I said above, Bitcoin is open source, not proprietary. And the name "Bitcoin" is arbitrary. You could call Litecoin Bitcoin an call the blockchain trading now on MtGox SatoshiCoin.

You mean a company like Sony maybe? After all Sony is a multinational conglomerate corporation ranked 87th on the 2012 list of Fortune Global 500.

Sony Hacked Again; 25 Million Entertainment Users’ Info at Risk

It's always easier to criticize than do. Where is your track record for being a huge pillar of support in the billion dollar Bitcoin ecosystem with your competence, dealing with unending security worries, local govt pressure, foreign govt pressure, user pressure, scams, lawsuits, user incompetence, user complaints, system upgrades, technical problems, competition, employee problems, normal problems, partner/bank problems and who knows what else?

Litecoin may be similar to Bitcoin, but it's not Bitcoin. That's actually the reason I began promoting its adoption. Even if there was another coin called Bitcoin with the exact same settings, but with a different imprint of coin owners and development team it wouldn't be Bitcoin (the one we call Bitcoin on MtGox).

In fact Litecoin does have other key differences. One is its hashing algorithm, which provides an in place backup if Bitcoin's ever breaks (or vice versa). Another is its blocks being 4x faster. Anyone on this forum a significant length of time will recall multiple threads complaining about not receiving even 1 confirmation, even when paying fees, sometimes for hours. Time is a factor in payments. To think it's not I think is frankly unrealistic.


Let's put things in perspective shall we? Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies thus far limit their total supply to some number of millions, Bitcoin's being 21 million and Litecoin 84 million, for example. There is a world population exceeding 7 billion and growing. Meanwhile, there are dollars (alone) with monetary unit supply in the several trillions. Does that help?


The point of being a different coin is that it's not the same blockchain. Also, since when is there a "Bitcoin" market? Isn't there only a free global market?


That doesn't mean cheap coins. Google's stock price is currently $880 per share. If I say I'll sell you .001 of a Google share for .88 cents each do you really think you've gotten "cheap" Google stock?

You know this brings up a good point I hadn't thought of. People around Bitcoin for a good length of time know it quickly becomes clear how superior Bitcoin is to other currencies when trying to move value, for example, when news comes out about an exchange or some other factor affecting Bitcoin significantly.

Suddenly people appreciate that Bitcoin can flow anywhere on the system, exchanges, merchants, private wallets etc. People with cash/USD etc. are stuck unless they can convert to Bitcoin to move value to more desirable places. Mt.Gox adding Litecoin (which may also spur others) will expand that ability giving people more options, which is always a good thing.

Yes, I've been waiting for Mt.Gox to add Litecoin as it will move it into the mainstream (for cryptocurrency) I believe. I don't think people realize how much support there is for Litecoin. Many think it's only a speculative play fueled by speculators late to the Bitcoin party. However, I've often tried to point out why I think it has fundamental value and a big support role to play for cryptocurrency. The number of users with LTC is huge due to its 4x faster inflation rate and that only means lots of market pressure for adoption.

I think it's also worth pointing out point #5:


There are a lot of Gox bashers, but that company has been hugely key in Bitcoin's progress to date (core devs, often unpaid, of course are another story!).

You might want to ask this in the mining section:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=14.0

Where are you guys getting the China stuff?

@lv426 appears correct. The site seems hosted by SingleHop.com located in Chicago:

Corporate Headquarters:

SingleHop, LLC.
ATTN: Account Management
215 W. Ohio St. 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654

Legal Inquiries

All legal inquiries should be
sent via fax and certified mail
to the addresses below.
At this time we do not accept
legal inquiries via E-mail.
Fax: 773-305-1666 SingleHop, LLC.
ATTN: Account Management
215 W. Ohio St. 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654

Also the domain was registered by GoDaddy.com on 4/15/2013. They are using GoDaddy for the registration and DNS which then points to SingleHop. That's very amateurish looking for a scam.

These are both US based companies which means law abiding and compliant usually. GoDaddy to my knowledge doesn't accept any anonymous form of payment so you may be able to get their identity through them. They do accept PayPal, though, and it's possible to buy blackmarket PayPal accounts.

The WHOIS lists a "john" in Thailand which is probably made up.

Try these too:

http://bitcoin.travel/
https://localbitcoins.com/country/US

It would seem the best way to set something up is have the bitcoin community contact/team up with the two leading Snowden support sites:

http://www.supportsnowden.org/

http://hongwrong.com/edward-snowden-rally

Really? My understanding of what happened is different. Remember, as an ordinary user to move any funds from USD to MtGox account USD took a bit of delay via Dwolla, even if your Dwolla funds were clear. In reverse the process was similar. When withdrawing USD from MtGox it would take maybe a day for that to credit to your Dwolla account (it used to be 2 weeks or more). At any given time I imagine many thousands of dollars in limbo given the size of MtGox. So if you had a pending transaction during the freeze operation I would think funds were stuck.

That's just my understanding of it.

I too was not up on the honey badger reference. That video was awesome. The narration was perfect too LOL

"Here comes a King Cobra. I wonder what's going to happen."

Don't give them undue credit. They couldn't kill Bitcoin if they wanted to (and they know it). Bitcoin is global.

The whole thing seems to be about identifying the difference in their perspective on something like Liberty Reserve versus Bitcoin, and how they see the opportunities Bitcoin can bring. Hopefully they mean that, but the last paragraph is what I found most interesting:


Sorry FinCEN that's no more possible than doing so with how criminals use cash. Cash can be used anonymously too, and dollars are probably responsible for financing most of the world's criminal activity as the world's reserve currency. But people are not to blame the dollar for how some people use it, no more than people are to blame guns for the crimes committed with them. These are only tools.