yes ltc is the key to the rest of the alts staying afloat. ltc survived previous waves of alts which are dead or so close it isnt funny. it continued survival shows cryptos outside of btc can survive. if it was to die (which isnt going to happen) who'd invest in any alt? that's what the fools plugging their own shitcoin don't seem to get, they think they have to fud others to push their own crap (for which they'll dump anyways if they make enough fiat). none of the latest flavors of the month will survive outside of this forum....ltc would  There has never been previous alts that Litecoin has faced like there are now it 2014. It's not comparable at all. Since bitcoin peaked out around $1200 the game as changed and the market is now ultra competitive with new tech and code coming out all the time. That was never the case in the last three years where Litecoin sat virtually unopposed. Well said.. the Litecoin community has no retort to this, other than call them all scam coins and their innovations gimmicks.  Anyone with half a brain that has actually done their research on what coins are out and in development can see through this baseless argument. |
|
|
|
yes ltc is the key to the rest of the alts staying afloat. ltc survived previous waves of alts which are dead or so close it isnt funny. it continued survival shows cryptos outside of btc can survive. if it was to die (which isnt going to happen) who'd invest in any alt? that's what the fools plugging their own shitcoin don't seem to get, they think they have to fud others to push their own crap (for which they'll dump anyways if they make enough fiat). none of the latest flavors of the month will survive outside of this forum....ltc would There has never been previous alts that Litecoin has faced like there are now it 2014. It's not comparable at all. Since bitcoin peaked out around $1200 the game as changed and the market is now ultra competitive with new tech and code coming out all the time. That was never the case in the last three years where Litecoin sat virtually unopposed. competitive ? so saturating the scene with useless garbage scam coin clones is competitive ? hmm really go figure who knew ? You (and other Litecoiners) are misinformed if you think all the new coins are garbage scam coins. Some are truly innovative and that is why Litecoin is in the tank. |
|
|
|
the original proposal advocates getting rid of the longest chain rule for
bitcoin in favor of some bizarre check against litecoin.
for that reason, it's mostly likely a very bad idea and not
even worthy of a core dev to comment on.
The way I understand, it doesn't effect Bitcoin unless it is under a 51% attack and more than one chain pops up. It would be a back up to the way Bitcoin determines a valid chain, only to be used in extreme circumstances. I don't think so. It says this: In the event there is an active Bitcoin block chain fork, the requirement is loosened such that the Bitcoin block header hash requirement can be satisfied by any leg of the chain, not just the one Bitcoin considers valid. . Do you see why this doesn't make any sense? You're messing with one of the key parts of the Bitcoin system and actually making it much easier to attack. No, I don't understand your point. Why specifically would it make it much easier to attack? I think it would do the opposite. |
|
|
|
the original proposal advocates getting rid of the longest chain rule for
bitcoin in favor of some bizarre check against litecoin.
for that reason, it's mostly likely a very bad idea and not
even worthy of a core dev to comment on.
The way I understand, it doesn't effect Bitcoin unless it is under a 51% attack and more than one chain pops up. It would be a back up to the way Bitcoin determines a valid chain, only to be used in extreme circumstances. PPcoin is superior to Bitcoin in every shape and form. Why not use that?
PPcoin could be used to do this, and I think alternatives should be looked into if Litecoin wouldn't want to. In fact, they seem downright hostile towards the idea so maybe it should be done on a different chain. It doesn't have to be Litecoin at all. Since Litecoin uses a different algorithm though, it would require building two different types of ASICs to 51% either network. Any coin with a different algorithm, or one secured by PoS like PPcoin would suffice. yes if one of bitcoin's pools gets close to 51% its best to move to another coin. If this were implemented, then it pretty much negates 51% attack unless the attacked can also gain a hold of the Litecoin network too. |
|
|
|
Dakota and Devphp are obvious paid NXT sockpupet who think shitty ipo nxt will overtake nxt won't happen no matter how hard they try.
NXT is the future of crypto. 1000000x better than Litecoin could ever dream of being. Comparing NXT to Litecoin is like comparing Superman to a squirrel. Ya keep being a sockpupet everyone knows NXT and ipo coins are garbage. IPO's are the future of coin distribution.. Comparing Ethereum to NXT is more likly comparing Superman to a squirrel. You cant compare nxt to litecoin, as nxt seems to be a transactionsystem with features for business back office like asset exchange, coloured coins etc. Litecoin is for the masses.I don't buy that statement. No one has to use all of those features of Nxt if they don't want to. Litecoin is a product of 2011 and kept very good over the years and will survive the ASIC turnaround.
The "Too Big To Fail" mantra is parasitic. Unfortunately Litecoin is worth something about 3 Dollars (old and new paradigm). Everything more is a bonus on that coin you can cash out or wait to cash more out.
Sure, everything more is bonus if you bought in under $3. |
|
|
|
Exactly, they don't want help. Litecoin is dead, leave it alone.
Well... I guess I agree with you here, it appears like that is true. I am hoping that the developers can see the value of the idea and convince the Litecoin sheep to follow them. I would leave it alone, but I still have some family and friends tied up in Litecoin.. don't think they want to sell at such a loss. My friend has 5 figures tied up. |
|
|
|
This is a very stupid idea to be completely honest.
Litecoin is even more vulnerable to 51% attacks than Bitcoin. It's difficulty is Way lower, and if you guys haven't noticed, there are Scrypt ASIC. Meaning that the same issues 51% problem for Bitcoin, is also there for Litecoin and it's much easier to successfully 51% attack Litecoin than Bitcoin .
Litecoin is not the silver to anyone's gold, it's simply just another shit alt-coin...with not much of a community(Yes i have an account at litecointalk and there is Hardly any activity there), and absolutely no new features or innovation. Nothing, Nada, zip. Litecoin can be compared to Dogecoin in the lack of innovation and any new features and the constant downfall in price, but even Dogecoin has a robust, outstanding community, while Litecoin's community is more empty than the Saharan Desert.
What you need, is a coin that won't suffer as much from the same 51% attacks that threaten Bitcoin.
Litecoin is definitely not the answer, there's nothing special about it, it's on a decline to 1 satoshi, has no community, and it's 10000000x easier to 51% attack than Bitcoin....
Even if both coins can be 51% attacked, it'd be more difficult to attack both coins at the same time. If somebody successfully attack Bitcoin, he would need to perform the same attack to Litecoin too, so it's verified. Quite difficult. Be it Litecoin or another alt coin, I think it's a great idea. Yes, good explanation. If you go to the thread on the Litecoin forums, the posters are acting like they don't need this or Bitcoin. I am hoping the Litecoin developers can take a step back and look at the big picture more rationally than the posters there. |
|
|
|
I think Casascius' idea is a great one! How can it be implemented? Who do we need to convince?
The Bitcoin and Litecoin development teams would need to work together. |
|
|
|
The crypto world would be a better place if we worked together. It is odd that both sides here (Bitcoin and Litecoin) are not interested in working together to do this.
I found it pretty disturbing most people in the Litecoin community didn't want to do it. I guess it's gonna take a $0.50 Litecoin before they will do anything. One of their biggest slogans right now is "we help with Bitcoin development", but IMO if they truly wanted to help Bitcoin then they would be more open to implementing this.
Dude, Litecoin is already freaking dead.It has had no updates/features/anything added by it's developer
It has an extreme lack of community, Dogecoin's puts it to shame
It has no first mover status
It has no adoption by any major organizations/companies at all
Leave that dead coin alone please. No one wants to affiliate a shit alt-coin like Litecoin, with Bitcoin. Shut up already bro. Anyone that cares knows your opinion after you repeated it the first 500 times. This thread is about securing Bitcoin and saving Litecoin. |
|
|
|
|
The crypto world would be a better place if we worked together. It is odd that both sides here (Bitcoin and Litecoin) are not interested in working together to do this.
I found it pretty disturbing most people in the Litecoin community didn't want to do it. I guess it's gonna take a $0.50 Litecoin before they will do anything. One of their biggest slogans right now is "we help with Bitcoin development", but IMO if they truly wanted to help Bitcoin then they would be more open to implementing this.
|
|
|
|
Mike Caldwell (Casascius) proposed an idea in the ALT coin subforums last year which I feel could be revisited. It is something that could help Bitcoin and Litecoin both by protecting Bitcoin and giving Litecoin more intrinsic value at the same time. He didn't receive a lot of good feedback, but Litecoin wasn't on a 6 month downtrend at that time, so I feel they may be more apt to it nowadays. This would make Bitcoin more secure, and I propose adding another chain to protect Litecoin down the road adding 3 layers of protection from different mining hardware. As long as the 3rd, 4th, etc... coins were PoW with different hashing algorithms than the coins already in the chain, it can exponentially add protection to 51% attacks by making someone that wanted to do one have to buy/develop SHA256, Scrypt, <insert coin here since we all know ASIC proof algorithms don't really exist.. or at least if they do it is buried in the ALT subforum and it isn't general public knowledge yet.> ASICs. There is no reason why this had to be used with only ASICs, you could use coins with algorithms that can only be mined currently on GPUs/CPUs/FPGAs/Etc. I hope you guys are open to implementing this idea, as I think it is a great one. One of the best solutions to protecting against 51% attacks that doesn't seem like it would be too hard to implement. I will quote Mikes' post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=176556.0Litecoiners: Idea to make Litecoin importance skyrocket in Bitcoin ecosystem
Today at 07:20:47 PM
#1
Quick rant: I have always viewed Litecoin as a detraction from Bitcoin and have refused to make mass quantities of physical Litecoins as a result. I have viewed Litecoin as nothing more than a hedge against Bitcoin seeing a 51% attack due to choice of SHA256 as an algorithm.
But: I believe I have thought of an idea that would make Litecoin far more important and relevant in the Bitcoin/cryptocurrency ecosystem, by being as ready in wait as possible in case Bitcoin really does experience a 51% attack.
In a nutshell, I view a Bitcoin 51% attack as eventually possible, for one reason: ASIC production efficiency scales far more than linearly with the amount of money an actor is willing to put into it; a bad actor with $1 billion to 51%-attack Bitcoin with its own custom ASICs will be far more than ten times as effective than ten bad actors with $100 million.
Anyway: here is the idea: Add a mandatory merge-mining feature to Litecoin so that it is always "merge-mining" Bitcoins, just for pretend, in hopes that one day Bitcoin will have the option of "let's subscribe to the Litecoin chain" (as a secondary means of block validation) as a way to resolve a future 51% attack on Bitcoin's SHA256-based chain.
Here is sort of how it would work:
1. Add a new requirement to the Litecoin chain such that a valid Litecoin block must contain either a record of the most recent Bitcoin block header hash, or a repeat of the hash found in the prior Litecoin block (with a limit of repetitions). Litecoin blocks that contain outdated Bitcoin intelligence should be disfavored by nodes capable of detecting that. Further impose the requirement that Bitcoin block headers must be represented contiguously in the Litecoin chain - Bitcoin blocks cannot be skipped (which shouldn't be a problem, when Litecoin blocks happen 4x as often as Bitcoin)
2. In the event there is an active Bitcoin block chain fork, the requirement is loosened such that the Bitcoin block header hash requirement can be satisfied by any leg of the chain, not just the one Bitcoin considers valid.
3. Add a feature to Litecoin clients that allow Litecoin users to decide to prefer or not-prefer branches of a Bitcoin fork while one is in progress. The default for this should always favor the Bitcoin leg with the most longevity, and should disfavor long chains that suddenly appear to replace a large amount of the known Bitcoin block chain. The user/miner/pool-op should always have an easy way to have the final say, such as by pasting in a preformatted message either exiling or checkpointing Bitcoin blocks.
Anticipated benefits:
1. Bitcoin users would have a ready made remedy to a 51% attack that they can switch to: Bitcoin users can simply add the requirement that if a Bitcoin block header hash makes it into the Litecoin chain, that its proof of work should be given a bonus. Litecoin community could create and maintain pulls to the Satoshi client that cause it to subscribe to the Litecoin chain and incorporate it as intelligence toward block validation and resolving block chain forks.
2. Bitcoin would have an easy way to add an emergency upper bound to block creation, just in case an enormous amount of power suddenly appeared. By turning on an optional must-appear-in-Litecoin requirement, the Bitcoin community could switch on an upper bound of 1 block per 2.5 minutes if it was deemed necessary.
3. Litecoin would be seen as far more important than a wannabe bitcoin knockoff without added value by those who see it that way.
4. Bitcoin's blockchain would be re-democratized to CPU/GPU users without forcing the Bitcoin community to switch to scrypt, they'd have more decentralized influence on bitcoin than those with the means to buy/make ASICs
5. The legitimacy of Litecoins would increase greatly - people would see the value of Litecoins in their role of protecting Bitcoin, and would potentially vote for the longevity of Litecoin by offering to accept LTC for goods and services, thereby increasing their value.
6. I'd start making Casascius Litecoins if you guys did this and did it well.
I'd call the concept "marriage-mining". By doing something like this, LTC gives a nod to BTC's importance while adding synergistic value to BTC that LTC can benefit from by association.
I have brought it up in the Litecoin forums here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=176556.0I am interested to hear Bitcoiners opinions about it as well. I initially didn't like the idea, but towards the end of the thread on Bitcointalk I realized it could be a very good thing for BOTH Bitcoin and Litecoin. I've been really hard on Litecoin lately trying to get them to up their game, I am hopeful that if the Bitcoin community wanted this 51% protection that they would be willing to make it happen. |
|
|
|
A lot of y'all seniors have come out of hiding since the LTC spasm, kek.
Not sure what you mean by this... If you are insinuating I own Litecoins and am doing this for my own self interests then you would be mistaken. If you are insinuating I own a different coin and want to see Litecoin fail, you would also be mistaken. I want Litecoin to succeed. I supported it for almost 2 years and even left my mark on it by making physical Litecoins. I don't want my name tied to a cryptocoin that failed and some of my family/friends are still invested. So, I have been doing everything I can think of to make sure that doesn't happen. I am giving them a hard time in hopes they realize they need to adapt to stay #2 in the long run. |
|
|
|
Wow, I should finish debating myself ITT.  I used to be so bullish on Litecoin, but my opinions have changed, the dynamics have changed, and I am much more informed than I was a year and a half ago. This thread is funny considering my recent posts about Litecoin. I'm hoping someone else can enjoy the irony with this bump.  As you can see.. I've always like to debate, it's just now that I have switched sides of the debate. You can call what I've been doing "trolling" if you like, but this is simply something I enjoy doing- debating about crypto currencies. Here is proof that I have always enjoyed doing so... I even went so far as to debate with myself.  |
|
|
|
Of course most people want to distribute the remaining stakes to the current stakeholders. But it would be more wise to put more Kora in bounties and to pay more devs. That's more important than having even richer stakeholders. This. The vote is simply people being greedy. |
|
|
|
quark implemented random hashing as well as the first, any other cryptos with random hashing?
There are probably others.. I can't keep up. |
|
|
|
I love the incentive here but I think that CoinHoarder needs to stricken up his selection process. Seems a bit crowded and too many small 'innovations' here. I first came here because the coins were truly unique AND innovative and seemed as though they could serve a real purpose. One I have been following for about 7 months, is Skycoin. It is written from scratch, addresses every problem bitcoin has, in detail. Introduces sidechains (for applications), has a scripting language and a new Obliesk proof of stake 'forging' algorithm. It also aims to construct a global meshnet/darknet by allowing people to share their resources for these coins. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=380441.0Another one that looks interesting, but time will tell, is nTx. It's a NXT clone but working on a concept call 'recasting', where all old blocks and their coins/assets etc are deleted after a certain amount of transactions. The coins can be kept if they are acknowledged and aliases are kept if a very small fee is paid. The whitepaper was poorly written and the code is still being worked on so that's all I could gather, but definitely innovate. Looks to solve the blockchain 'bloat' problem, which I think could be huge in, lets say 10 years, if micro transactions become huge. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=625668I think the selection process should be based on quality not quantity. It's your thread though and it's great so far, so keep it up! Thanks for the feedback. I think the reason for that was when I started this thread it was investment advice at first. I then decided that I didn't really want to put myself out there like that and perhaps promote a scam or coin that may fail. I decided that this would just be a list of innovative coins for developers researching what has been done before and how they did it. I think still it is a good starting point for ALT coin investing though, as I think it will take an innovative coin to compete with the big boys. Even the small innovations have their place I think. Small innovations can be combined with other innovations to create something great. If you see the link in my signature about a fairly released PoS coin.. this is what I mean.. I basically combined several innovations from different cryptos to create something that in my opinion would be the most fair PoS crypto release to date. That being said.. I will try to trim the list a little bit. There are some projects (like eMunie) that are dead and those could definitely go. The problem is some coins are trying to do the same or similar things, but they are still new concepts and not fully developed yet. It is hard to tell which ones I should list and which ones I should not, so I have been listing them all... IE. I have no idea out of the 3-4 decentralized data storage projects will be the most easy to use/have the most utility/be the most successful/etc. The same could be said for all the "ASIC resistant", PoS variations, anonymous transaction coins, PoW coins to solve wasted processing power, etcetra. Any suggestions as to that? Thanks for suggesting those cryptos, I'll take a look. |
|
|
|
|
Buyers don't need to report anything, but the sellers should, especially if they're selling large amounts.
Local Bitcoins works inside a loophole in that they don't actually handle any of the money in the trades. All money is transacted inbetween the buyer and seller and their personal bank accounts, local bitcoins just takes a fee for matching the two together.
I imagine there will be some litigation versus local bitcoin sellers that don't follow kyc rules. They will make an example out of the biggest ones.
|
|
|
|
I'm not an investor, but option #2 seems like a sensible solution. EDIT: OH I realized you can sign up for the IPO for free- good idea, I may go sign up myself. The more development funds for bounties and developers the better, and the more likely Kora will be a success. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
