|
503
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin port of Bitaddress.org?
|
on: February 14, 2013, 12:19:56 AM
|
Is there any way the client itself could include a "print to paper" option ? Possibly. But how useful would that really be? Maybe we just need to add a export private key option. I would not make sense to use those keys as a normal paper wallet (where you typically send money to it once or more times and only redeem it once) since a lot of those address are throw away addresses and change addresses. |
|
|
|
|
504
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin port of Bitaddress.org?
|
on: February 14, 2013, 12:17:41 AM
|
awesome! i found a bug in it today though, and then i realised the same bug is also in bitaddress.org... on the first tab, in chrome 24.x, i clicked Generate New Address many times and a little too fast and eventually the QR codes stopped working and just showing solid black squares after that, no amount of clicking Generate New Address would bring back the QR codes... it just stayed solid black i had to refresh the page to get those QRs working again could someone please try to replicate this? edit: this time i tried just clicking very slowly and counting... the QR codes still turned solid black after 18 clicks of the Generate button. What browser are you using? I'm using Chrome and I cannot replicate this problem. |
|
|
|
|
505
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Greedi and Coblee and Litecoin
|
on: February 13, 2013, 11:20:43 PM
|
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. was this weeks ago? About 12 hours ago. |
|
|
|
|
507
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
508
|
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?  No offense to any moderators reading this, but bitcoin forum moderators have done their share of questionable things from what I've heard.  Forum updated: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1179.msg6757.html |
|
|
|
|
511
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SRoulettes Dream Alt Coin
|
on: February 13, 2013, 08:51:01 AM
|
Oh thanks for the compliment 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 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  , 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  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. |
|
|
|
|
512
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
513
|
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? No offense to any moderators reading this, but bitcoin forum moderators have done their share of questionable things from what I've heard. |
|
|
|
|
514
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SRoulettes Dream Alt Coin
|
on: February 13, 2013, 04:06:43 AM
|
Oh thanks for the compliment 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 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". |
|
|
|
|
515
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
516
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
518
|
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.3Fhttps://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/Mining-hardware-comparisonHere are the current state of things: 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/dec173dda2735ff11376b68bdfda804cede230c1fa6f1a11765cddfd8edf4398We 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/a065026ba50a71e1d4979e078265dc9ccf15d0b393969cd35ec4c954bf2c22fbYou can see the cumulative difficulty on the block explorer page. 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/6fcf032b2edfd3e06ee6cace9ed9b6c219d8dca06fa1f43a47cb1c5b7f87084fLet's do the same math: 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/7b08a3bfb5f2a865fc0061f6e3f5b97fa1690c8d357ccd814fd9f55641f83187Cumulative 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? |
|
|
|
|
519
|
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.3Fhttps://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/Mining-hardware-comparisonHere are the current state of things: 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/dec173dda2735ff11376b68bdfda804cede230c1fa6f1a11765cddfd8edf4398We 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/a065026ba50a71e1d4979e078265dc9ccf15d0b393969cd35ec4c954bf2c22fbYou can see the cumulative difficulty on the block explorer page. 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/6fcf032b2edfd3e06ee6cace9ed9b6c219d8dca06fa1f43a47cb1c5b7f87084fLet's do the same math: 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/7b08a3bfb5f2a865fc0061f6e3f5b97fa1690c8d357ccd814fd9f55641f83187Cumulative 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) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
