Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2019, 09:22:26 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 77 »
381  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Greedi and Coblee and Litecoin on: February 13, 2013, 11:03:57 PM
what happened to litecoin forum before that it has to be started from scratch as efx said

http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1179.msg6759.html?PHPSESSID=5rhfdvv322185tkjg5adctbpr6#msg6759

Thanks to Someguy123 backing up the database, it doesn't have to be started from scratch. He just imported the db to his server and I pointed forum.litecoin.net to his server. Most people wouldn't even have noticed the backend change.
382  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin , logo tweak ? on: February 13, 2013, 07:52:11 PM
Looks good. I like the first design. Upload a 256x256 version and a 48x48 version.

Coblee, are you still working on Litecoin development?

Yes, I am. I do really like this design and will incorporate it into the next release.
Mjbmonetarymetals, will you release these designs into the public domain?

Fantastic; donated

I thanks I got your donation for 333. Why not 420? :p
383  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Greedi and Coblee and Litecoin on: February 13, 2013, 11:14:54 AM
Greedi is not the lead of Litecoin. He is just someone who I chose to host the official Litecoin forum. He has been a great supporter of Litecoin. But his behavior recently has made me question whether I have misplaced my trust. I do not think a moderator has the right to snoop on private messages and he definitely has no business questioning people about private matters. And he should not delete message he doesn't like. If Greedi cannot live up to those standards, then he will be replaced.

If you are quitting a coin because of an action of a forum moderator, then why are you here? Smiley
No offense to any moderators reading this, but bitcoin forum moderators have done their share of questionable things from what I've heard.  Tongue

Forum updated: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1179.msg6757.html
384  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Greedi and Coblee and Litecoin on: February 13, 2013, 10:54:50 AM
Who is/are the developers that currently represent litecoin development?

Right now, it's just me and laSeek.

Are there any plans to update the code to BitCoin 0.7 and beyond?

Yes, stay tuned.
385  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Greedi and Coblee and Litecoin on: February 13, 2013, 10:38:35 AM
Who is/are the developers that currently represent litecoin development?

Right now, it's just me and laSeek.
386  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SRoulettes Dream Alt Coin on: February 13, 2013, 08:51:01 AM
Oh thanks for the compliment  Smiley

Although the transaction fees cannot be too low as it's the only defense against transaction spamming attack.

PPC fees are perfectly acceptable in our opinion Smiley We usually see automatic fees of 0.01 ppc for most transactions that require any fee.

Litecoin unfortunately, the fees are a bit unreasonable for some amounts, eg 0.1 LTC fee for sending 1 LTC = a fee of 10%.
Sending a fraction of a litecoin, eg 0.666 LTC and  the fee is often 0.4 LTC .

Litecoin fees will be adjust as litecoin prices rise. For now, I don't think it's unreasonable to charge high fees for sending such a small amount of litecoins. 1 LTC is only 7 cents. If you don't get charged a high fee for sending thousands of 7 cents transactions, then everyone has to pay the price (relay/mine/store) for this "spam".

Hello Coblee Cheesy, firstly thank you for creating litecoin. It was the altcoin that triggered our interest in the rest, thank you for you hard work and its great to see you active on the forums.

The issue we have is ltc fees are significantly higher than other alt coins and ltc is also the most valuable by far.
The unfortunate side effect of this is that for gambling at least, litecoin is not as attractive as say TRC.

Also it superficially it detracts from the value of a single coin, knowing the 10% of that coin is likely to be spent just transferring it.

That being said, litecoin has outlasted the other altcoins and we acknowledge that this could be the reason.
So we respectfully disagree and ask again:

lower the fees, pretty please with sugar on top  Kiss Kiss Kiss

The reason why the fees are so high is because Litecoin was attacked by transaction spam a while back, and I had to do this to deter the attacker. If I reduce the fees, the attacker might come back. Those other alt coins just have not become successful enough for someone to bother attacking them yet. :p

I will look into reducing the fees. No promises.
387  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 13, 2013, 07:46:33 AM
Hey franky1 since you joined in Sept 2012 did you ever think that the forum existed prior to that date?  For most of 2011 Litecoin was touted by its supporters and developers as being "GPU hostile".  Most of it is still in the old threads.  You trying to rewrite history a year and a half later just makes you look like an idiot.

Sorry, the homepage will need to be updated. Litecoin was supposed to be a GPU-hostile coin. I was mistaken and believed ArtForz that mining on GPUs would be hard. Turns out, the scrypt parameters that ArtForz chose were not memory-hard enough. And when mtrlt wrote an efficient GPU miner and released it, it was pretty clear that mining on GPU is about 10x the speed of mining on CPU. It's not the 1000x different like it is for bitcoins, but it's still enough to cause a lot of GPU miners to start mining litecoins and making CPU-mining not worth it.

I have thought about upping the parameters to make the algorithm more memory hard to combat GPU mining. But that would cause a hard fork and I'm not sure how the users would take that. After thinking about it for a while, I decided to not do that mainly because of the impending Bitcoin ASIC release. One of the original goals of Litecoin was to release a coin mined by a different architecture than Bitcoin. That way, it will avoid the fate of Namecoin, where GPU miners would jump on Namecoin mining when it was profitable and abandon it when difficulty adjusts. This left Namecoin in a hole and made it such that it took months for difficulty to drop back down, and then the whole cycle repeated. You see a little bit of that with Litecoin right now where the difficulty would jump up and down. But with 4x quicker difficulty adjustments, it's not as bad. Namecoin had to resort to merged mining to fix this problem, which I believe kills all ability for that coin to act as a viable currency.

When Bitcoin ASICs come, the difficulty will likely shoot up 100x and GPU mining bitcoins would not be worth it. And a lot of the GPUs would be turned onto Litecoin. This is actually good, because it would help protect the Litecoin network. Mining Bitcoin would then again be on a different hardware mining architecture and we wouldn't see hashrates shifting from one coin to another due to fluctuations in price and difficulty.
388  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Greedi and Coblee and Litecoin on: February 13, 2013, 06:38:16 AM
Greedi is not the lead of Litecoin. He is just someone who I chose to host the official Litecoin forum. He has been a great supporter of Litecoin. But his behavior recently has made me question whether I have misplaced my trust. I do not think a moderator has the right to snoop on private messages and he definitely has no business questioning people about private matters. And he should not delete message he doesn't like. If Greedi cannot live up to those standards, then he will be replaced.

If you are quitting a coin because of an action of a forum moderator, then why are you here? Smiley
No offense to any moderators reading this, but bitcoin forum moderators have done their share of questionable things from what I've heard.  Tongue
389  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SRoulettes Dream Alt Coin on: February 13, 2013, 04:06:43 AM
Oh thanks for the compliment  Smiley

Although the transaction fees cannot be too low as it's the only defense against transaction spamming attack.

PPC fees are perfectly acceptable in our opinion Smiley We usually see automatic fees of 0.01 ppc for most transactions that require any fee.

Litecoin unfortunately, the fees are a bit unreasonable for some amounts, eg 0.1 LTC fee for sending 1 LTC = a fee of 10%.
Sending a fraction of a litecoin, eg 0.666 LTC and  the fee is often 0.4 LTC .

Litecoin fees will be adjust as litecoin prices rise. For now, I don't think it's unreasonable to charge high fees for sending such a small amount of litecoins. 1 LTC is only 7 cents. If you don't get charged a high fee for sending thousands of 7 cents transactions, then everyone has to pay the price (relay/mine/store) for this "spam".
390  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Here's why no one was GPU-mining Litecoin from the start on: February 13, 2013, 02:54:10 AM
Here's the math:

On 1/13/2012
Litecoin difficulty: 0.65
Litecoin price: $0.02/ltc (0.003 btc/ltc)
Bitcoin difficulty: 1,250,757.74
Bitcoin block reward: 50 btc
Bitcoin price: $6.5/btc

GPU mines about 1000x the speed on Bitcoin compared to Litecoin

A 5970 would mine bitcoins around 750 mhash/s and get about 0.6 btc a day at that time, which is about $4.23
If mining litecoins at 750 khash/s, it would make 1160 ltc a day, which is about $23.20

Ok, so you'd make 5.5 times more. There'd be no risk. Just sell all the litecoins you'd make for bitcoins and if that pushes the price down to a point where it's no longer profitable to mine litecoins, then switch back to bitcoin mining. And that price would be 0.0005 btc/ltc. (I don't remember litecoin price ever being that low)
391  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Here's why no one was GPU-mining Litecoin from the start on: February 13, 2013, 02:16:21 AM
Thanks for all the numbers. Clearly artforz would never do anything like only using a portion of his miners on LTC and BTC. Inconceivable.

If you had miners that can make 10x the amount mining litecoins instead of bitcoins, would you not put all your miners on litecoins? It's not like anyone would suspect anything. They'd just think some botnets were mining litecoins with a lot of CPUs.

I will do that math to figure out exact how much more profitable it was.
392  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 13, 2013, 01:49:59 AM
I made it its own thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=143659.0
Probably move this discussion there if there's still doubt about this issue.
393  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Here's why no one was GPU-mining Litecoin from the start on: February 13, 2013, 01:48:38 AM
When GPU mining Litecoin became a reality, people kept spreading FUD that ArtForz and/or I have been GPU-mining Litecoin from the start.
Let me put this issue about GPU-mining from the start to rest once and for all.
I will use cumulative difficulty to figure out how much hashpower has been working on a chain since the start.

There's going to be a lot of math here. First read up on this:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty#What_network_hash_rate_results_in_a_given_difficulty.3F
https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/Mining-hardware-comparison

Here are the current state of things:
Code:
Current difficulty: 20.794
Number of hashes to solve a block: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 89,309,034,556.95
Seconds per block: 2.5 * 60 = 150s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/SECONDS_PER_BLOCK = 595 mhash/s (~2000 average GPUs)

Litecoin was launched on 10/13/2011 03:00:00 at block #3:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/dec173dda2735ff11376b68bdfda804cede230c1fa6f1a11765cddfd8edf4398

We can calculate how much hashpower has been put on the chain since the start using cumulative difficulty.
Let's check a recent block 294537 found on 2/12/2012 03:00:00
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/a065026ba50a71e1d4979e078265dc9ccf15d0b393969cd35ec4c954bf2c22fb
You can see the cumulative difficulty on the block explorer page.

Code:
Cumulative difficulty: 2,421,540.599
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 10,400,437,678,641,250
Time since start (in seconds): 2013-02-12 - 2011-10-13 = 488 days * 24*60*60 = 42,163,200 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 246.67 mhash/s (~1000 average GPUs)

So we average about 1000 GPUs working on the chain. In other words, if you had 246.67 mhash/s pointed at the chain since launch, you'd have found just as many hashes.

Now, here's what you all wanted to know. How much hashing power was pointed at the chain during the first week.
Here's block 14807 found at 10/20/2011 03:00:00:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/6fcf032b2edfd3e06ee6cace9ed9b6c219d8dca06fa1f43a47cb1c5b7f87084f

Let's do the same math:

Code:
Cumulative difficulty: 438.193
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 1,882,024,604,336
Time since start (in seconds): 7 days * 24*60*60 = 604,800 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 3.11 mhash/s (~100 average CPUs OR 10 average GPUs)

A month later. Block 31011:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/7b08a3bfb5f2a865fc0061f6e3f5b97fa1690c8d357ccd814fd9f55641f83187

Code:
Cumulative difficulty: 5,949.565
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 25,553,187,100,426
Time since start (in seconds): 31 days * 24*60*60 = 2,678,400 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 9.54 mhash/s (~300 average CPUs OR 30 average GPUs)

After 3 months (http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/55d1323fa4d7175953fab43ef97c0ef18577d8f000e494740ccc867d42fe67f5), average hashrate is 18 mhash/s. You can do that math yourself.


Seems like the normal growth of a CPU-only (at the time) coin to me.

ArtForz had 24 5970s. 5970s can do 750 khash/s. If he put those 5970s on mining Litecoin, he would have 18 mhash/s, which is twice the work done on the chain in the first month. Litecoin was put on the exchange pretty quickly and mining litecoins was pretty profitable even with a CPU. If ArtForz had GPU scrypt mining from the start, would he not put those machines on mining Litecoin and make a killing?
394  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 13, 2013, 12:47:07 AM
Let me put this issue about GPU-mining from the start to rest once and for all. I will use cumulative difficulty to figure out how much hashpower has been working on a chain since the start.

There's going to be a lot of math here. First read up on this:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty#What_network_hash_rate_results_in_a_given_difficulty.3F
https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/Mining-hardware-comparison

Here are the current state of things:
Code:
Current difficulty: 20.794
Number of hashes to solve a block: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 89,309,034,556.95
Seconds per block: 2.5 * 60 = 150s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/SECONDS_PER_BLOCK = 595 mhash/s (~2000 average GPUs)

Litecoin was launched on 10/13/2011 03:00:00 at block #3:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/dec173dda2735ff11376b68bdfda804cede230c1fa6f1a11765cddfd8edf4398

We can calculate how much hashpower has been put on the chain since the start using cumulative difficulty.
Let's check a recent block 294537 found on 2/12/2012 03:00:00
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/a065026ba50a71e1d4979e078265dc9ccf15d0b393969cd35ec4c954bf2c22fb
You can see the cumulative difficulty on the block explorer page.

Code:
Cumulative difficulty: 2,421,540.599
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 10,400,437,678,641,250
Time since start (in seconds): 2013-02-12 - 2011-10-13 = 488 days * 24*60*60 = 42,163,200 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 246.67 mhash/s (~1000 average GPUs)

So we average about 1000 GPUs working on the chain. In other words, if you had 246.67 mhash/s pointed at the chain since launch, you'd have found just as many hashes.

Now, here's what you all wanted to know. How much hashing power was pointed at the chain during the first week.
Here's block 14807 found at 10/20/2011 03:00:00:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/6fcf032b2edfd3e06ee6cace9ed9b6c219d8dca06fa1f43a47cb1c5b7f87084f

Let's do the same math:

Code:
Cumulative difficulty: 438.193
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 1,882,024,604,336
Time since start (in seconds): 7 days * 24*60*60 = 604,800 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 3.11 mhash/s (~100 average CPUs OR 10 average GPUs)

A month later. Block 31011:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/7b08a3bfb5f2a865fc0061f6e3f5b97fa1690c8d357ccd814fd9f55641f83187

Code:
Cumulative difficulty: 5,949.565
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 25,553,187,100,426
Time since start (in seconds): 31 days * 24*60*60 = 2,678,400 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 9.54 mhash/s (~300 average CPUs OR 30 average GPUs)

Seems like the normal growth of a CPU-only (at the time) coin to me.

ArtForz had 24 5970s. 5970s can do 750 khash/s. If he put those 5970s on mining Litecoin, he would have 18 mhash/s, which is twice the work done on the chain in the first month. Litecoin was put on the exchange pretty quickly and mining litecoins was pretty profitable even with a CPU. If ArtForz had GPU scrypt mining from the start, would he not put those machines on mining Litecoin and make a killing?

So can we now stop spreading FUD?

Edit: After 3 months, effective hashrate is 18 mhash/s (http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/55d1323fa4d7175953fab43ef97c0ef18577d8f000e494740ccc867d42fe67f5)
395  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 12, 2013, 11:27:50 PM
Some interesting reading for those interested:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45849
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46063.msg549768#msg549768
396  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 12, 2013, 11:22:25 PM
Here are ArtForz's posts: https://bitcointalk.org/?action=profile;u=584;sa=showPosts

If people wanted to see his thoughts, go read his posts. And stop spreading FUD about Litecoin being GPU-mined from the start. Is it possible that it was? Sure, anything is possible. Just like it's possible that Satoshi was ASIC-mining bitcoins from the start and now actually owns 10 million bitcoins.
397  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 12, 2013, 11:16:34 PM
The only "problem" I see is that it hasn't been updated in months. I hadn't started litecoin in a couple months and there were barely any changes when I updated my source tree...

Is https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin still current? Are there any plans to rebase to bitcoin 0.8?

Yes, I plan to do that soon.

Does it have a design flaw?
It isn't as much flaw as deception. Litecoin used the same scrypt parameters as Tenebrix. Artforz had gamed almost everyone involved in the scrypt()-based coins. He had choosen the set of parameters that made GPU mining possible, but made claims that the design is GPU-resistant. Then he proceeded to mine all the scrypt()-based coins (Tenebrix/Fairbrix/etc) on his GPU farm that was significantly more efficient than the CPU miners.

Exactly. Scrypt-based mining is not bad but LTC is just a scam

I for one, did not see anything suspicious going on when I launched Litecoin. If I remember correctly, at the start the network hashrate was comparable to about a few hundred CPUs mining and it slowly ramped up from there. If there were any GPUs mining at that time, the network hashrate would be a lot larger than just a few hundred CPUs equivalent.

It's true that I probably should not have taken just ArtForz's word on how gpu-resistant scrypt was with those chosen params. But ArtForz was a very well respected member of the bitcoin community and seemed to know a lot about what he was doing... at least a lot more than me. And he has earned enough bitcoins from the early days, that stealing a ton of scrypt-based coins just seemed beneath him. Plus his reasoning for using scrypt with those parameters were posted months before Litecoin launched, and people have looked over his reasoning and no one came out and said anything against his reasonings.

So no, LTC is not a scam. Do you consider bitcoin to be a scam? Satoshi designed it so that everyone can mine bitcoins and get in on the action. But now one ASIC is about a million times faster than your CPU at mining bitcoins.
398  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [Announce] Fairbrix relaunched! on: February 12, 2013, 09:21:29 PM
As the creator of Fairbrix, I should chime in. First of all, Fairbrix is dead and I have abandoned it since launching Litecoin. Please DO NOT download any windows binaries and run them. They could actually steal real coins from your computer.

I'm going to lock this thread now.
399  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin port of Bitaddress.org? on: February 11, 2013, 09:41:16 PM
And a Litecoin banknote image!

http://forum.litecoin.net//index.php/topic,1170.0.html
400  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin port of Bitaddress.org? on: February 11, 2013, 10:01:48 AM
I just cloned the latest from github and put this together: http://liteaddress.org/
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 77 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!