Thoughts on mid term gain Litecoin v. Bitcoin

[Nolo]

Would it be more profitable to keep funds in Bitcoins or Litecoins?  The past couple of weeks have looked very bullish for Litecoins.

[1715510616]

1715510616

[1715510616]

1715510616

[1715510616]

1715510616

[1715510616]

1715510616

[Spekulatius]

Idk, there are no true advantages for litecoin over bitcoin that I can see.. so longterm, given bitcoins head start I think litecoin will fade away. Short or Midterm however some new developments like litecoindice and whatnot can probably contribute to appreciation in price.
Also, litecoin or namecoin prove to be pretty good hedging instruments during bitcoin down trends.

[jimbobway]

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

[ElectricMucus]

Interesting to see the same arguments brought up against bitcoin are used here. Way to be a hypocrite.

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

Butthurt?

[Nolo]

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

Any logic or reasoning behind this thought? 

[jimbobway]

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

Any logic or reasoning behind this thought? 

No, not really.  Just my gut.  Maybe I'm wrong.

[Nolo]

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

Any logic or reasoning behind this thought? 

No, not really.  Just my gut.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Well dang.  I was hoping you had some insight that I haven't seen before.  Right now I tend to buy into the line of thinking that BTC = Gold, and LTC = Silver.

[SgtSpike]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

[Cablez]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

And that is the kicker........+1

[gimme_bottles]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

thats why namecoin will last longer than litecoin. it has a point that bitcoin doesn't have.

[RyNinDaCleM]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

The only real plus is the block times! There's just something nice about having a fully confirmed transaction in 20 mins or so.

[julz]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

The only real plus is the block times! There's just something nice about having a fully confirmed transaction in 20 mins or so.

I don't get this.  20 minutes of hash-power securing the chain is still only that much hash-power that an adversary needs to work against.
All this is doing is lowering the chain's security level of what is called 'fully confirmed' surely.

[ElectricMucus]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

The only real plus is the block times! There's just something nice about having a fully confirmed transaction in 20 mins or so.

I don't get this.  20 minutes of hash-power securing the chain is still only that much hash-power that an adversary needs to work against.
All this is doing is lowering the chain's security level of what is called 'fully confirmed' surely.

What matters is the first confirmation, because of usually exessive hasing power this means that for almost all transactions one confirmation is sufficent. An ideal cryptocurrency would even provide a confirmation after a fraction of a second, it would just need someone to come up with a clever trick so the system is scaleable and efficient.

[proudhon]

I think LTC still has some life in it, and it could end up getting stuck into an inverse price relationship with bitcoin, which would be interesting.  I don't see any reason to think of it as a serious contender against bitcoin.  I bought a bunch a while back as a gamble to recover my bitcoinica losses and I've almost done so.  FWIW, I sold about 20k LTC this morning for BTC.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

Any logic or reasoning behind this thought? 

No, not really.  Just my gut.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Well dang.  I was hoping you had some insight that I haven't seen before.  Right now I tend to buy into the line of thinking that BTC = Gold, and LTC = Silver.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin's silver.   Rather than marketing speak think about why silver (and copper) coins were created in the first place.  Why wasn't just gold always used for everything from a Kings ransom to a poor man's meal?  Does Bitcoin have that limitation?

[SgtSpike]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

The only real plus is the block times! There's just something nice about having a fully confirmed transaction in 20 mins or so.

I don't get this.  20 minutes of hash-power securing the chain is still only that much hash-power that an adversary needs to work against.
All this is doing is lowering the chain's security level of what is called 'fully confirmed' surely.

What matters is the first confirmation, because of usually exessive hasing power this means that for almost all transactions one confirmation is sufficent. An ideal cryptocurrency would even provide a confirmation after a fraction of a second, it would just need someone to come up with a clever trick so the system is scaleable and efficient.

Spellcheck dude.

While I agree that the first confirmation is what matters, litecoin's 2 minute blocks don't provide much true advantage over bitcoin's 10 minute blocks.  If litecoin had 10 second blocks or less, then we might be talking.  And actually, I'd love to see someone try that (with maybe 2 second blocks) just to see how it works with the Bitcoin protocol as-is.  Block headers really aren't that large, so I don't think there'd be a huge file size difference between the two.  Chains would obviously fight each other to be longest here and there, tons of orphan blocks, etc, but ultimately, a person's transaction is going to be confirmed very quickly, even if it is confirmed and reversed a couple of times before being truly set in stone.

So, back to litecoin vs bitcoin.  2 minutes is still far too long for any reasonable point of sale operation to wait, so despite the advantage on the surface, I can't think of any scenarios where this offers a large advantage over Bitcoin.  2 minutes is still a long and awkward time to wait.

[labestiol]

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

Any logic or reasoning behind this thought?  

No, not really.  Just my gut.  Maybe I'm wrong.

There is something to this. Namecoin is build to be a database (of DNS primarily, but other things could/will emerge, like a name->btc address).
Litecoin is just an attempt to solve the "slow" confirmation problem, while it doesn't solve the "instant" confirmation problem needed (for which the solution already exist, namely green addresses).
So I agree with jimbobway. Namecoin is much better than Litecoin (imho).

Namecoin is a share in this decentralized database, which will (perhaps) grow.
Litecoin is a solution to a fake problem.

Just my 2 satoshis

[MysteryMiner]

I recommend Ixcoin over Litecoin.

[ElectricMucus]

One thing going for litecoin is that, well it does use another method for blockchain hashing.
In itself that isn't that great, but it is worth something because it enables you to even hedge the risk of some issues with SHA-2.

Before I am ridiculed for that statement: Have you noticed the announcement about SHA-3?
Yeah the contest is finished, and as I mentioned before there will come the time where cryptoanalysts in academics can hack at it without some three letter agency representative showing up at campus.
That is not certain to have any effect, but it might have...

IMO the SHA-3 contest ending is probably the most fundamental explanation for the push in litecoin valuation.

[payb.tc]

i think litecoin would have a use even if it were an absolutely identical clone of bitcoin.

the thing that it can do that bitcoin cannot, is it can help you diversify away from bitcoin, while not converting to fiat.

that alone is worth something.

i much prefer btc/ltc/btc speculation than any other pairs involving fiat.

[Energizer]

It is hard to tell if its better to invest in LTC or BTC, but there are a couple of facts that would make LTC investment more profitable than BTC in the coming 3 months.  The first fact is there are more services accepting LTC today than it use to be a couple of months ago. The second fact is when ASIC is gonna hit the BTC network, all GPU miners will be directed to LTC, also there would be new FPGA bitstreams for LTC. In return LTC difficulty will increase dramatically. The third fact is LTC price is already rising and its more profitable to mine LTC today than mining BTC. Such LTC price rising will drive LTC difficulty higher in a couple of weeks if not couple of days. LTC difficulty will then keep rising up until it reaches a point where mining LTC is as profitable as mining BTC.

Bottom line you can expect much higher LTC demand, value and difficulty in just 2 months from now.

[Transisto]

... The first fact is there are more services accepting LTC today than it use to be a couple of months ago. ...

Excuse my ignorance but what service accept LTC ?  Is there a directory somewhere ?  I saw a satoshibets clone and that's it.

[Energizer]

... The first fact is there are more services accepting LTC today than it use to be a couple of months ago. ...

Excuse my ignorance but what service accept LTC ?  Is there a directory somewhere ?  I saw a satoshibets clone and that's it.

https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/List-of-Litecoin-related-services

[smoothie]

Litecoins will eventually die.  Namecoin is much better than Litecoin.

Any logic or reasoning behind this thought? 

No, not really.  Just my gut.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Well dang.  I was hoping you had some insight that I haven't seen before.  Right now I tend to buy into the line of thinking that BTC = Gold, and LTC = Silver.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin's silver.   Rather than marketing speak think about why silver (and copper) coins were created in the first place.  Why wasn't just gold always used for everything from a Kings ransom to a poor man's meal?  Does Bitcoin have that limitation?

That's fine. I see opportunity in Litecoin. If you don't, that's fine. But having just one cryptocurrency will never be enough.

Imagine the internet with ONLY one website. LOL

 

[smoothie]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

The only real plus is the block times! There's just something nice about having a fully confirmed transaction in 20 mins or so.

I don't get this.  20 minutes of hash-power securing the chain is still only that much hash-power that an adversary needs to work against.
All this is doing is lowering the chain's security level of what is called 'fully confirmed' surely.

What matters is the first confirmation, because of usually exessive hasing power this means that for almost all transactions one confirmation is sufficent. An ideal cryptocurrency would even provide a confirmation after a fraction of a second, it would just need someone to come up with a clever trick so the system is scaleable and efficient.

Spellcheck dude.

While I agree that the first confirmation is what matters, litecoin's 2 minute blocks don't provide much true advantage over bitcoin's 10 minute blocks.  If litecoin had 10 second blocks or less, then we might be talking.  And actually, I'd love to see someone try that (with maybe 2 second blocks) just to see how it works with the Bitcoin protocol as-is.  Block headers really aren't that large, so I don't think there'd be a huge file size difference between the two.  Chains would obviously fight each other to be longest here and there, tons of orphan blocks, etc, but ultimately, a person's transaction is going to be confirmed very quickly, even if it is confirmed and reversed a couple of times before being truly set in stone.

So, back to litecoin vs bitcoin.  2 minutes is still far too long for any reasonable point of sale operation to wait, so despite the advantage on the surface, I can't think of any scenarios where this offers a large advantage over Bitcoin.  2 minutes is still a long and awkward time to wait.

Geist Geld had about 10 second blocks...and look how that turned out. It was a mess. That fast ins't necessarily better.

That's why GG was created...to test...

[SgtSpike]

I just don't see the point of using Litecoin instead of Bitcoin.  What is the point of Litecoin even existing, when Bitcoin can already do everything Litecoin can do?

The only real plus is the block times! There's just something nice about having a fully confirmed transaction in 20 mins or so.

I don't get this.  20 minutes of hash-power securing the chain is still only that much hash-power that an adversary needs to work against.
All this is doing is lowering the chain's security level of what is called 'fully confirmed' surely.

What matters is the first confirmation, because of usually exessive hasing power this means that for almost all transactions one confirmation is sufficent. An ideal cryptocurrency would even provide a confirmation after a fraction of a second, it would just need someone to come up with a clever trick so the system is scaleable and efficient.

Spellcheck dude.

While I agree that the first confirmation is what matters, litecoin's 2 minute blocks don't provide much true advantage over bitcoin's 10 minute blocks.  If litecoin had 10 second blocks or less, then we might be talking.  And actually, I'd love to see someone try that (with maybe 2 second blocks) just to see how it works with the Bitcoin protocol as-is.  Block headers really aren't that large, so I don't think there'd be a huge file size difference between the two.  Chains would obviously fight each other to be longest here and there, tons of orphan blocks, etc, but ultimately, a person's transaction is going to be confirmed very quickly, even if it is confirmed and reversed a couple of times before being truly set in stone.

So, back to litecoin vs bitcoin.  2 minutes is still far too long for any reasonable point of sale operation to wait, so despite the advantage on the surface, I can't think of any scenarios where this offers a large advantage over Bitcoin.  2 minutes is still a long and awkward time to wait.

Geist Geld had about 10 second blocks...and look how that turned out. It was a mess. That fast ins't necessarily better.

That's why GG was created...to test...

Why was Geist Geld a mess?  What happened?  I wasn't involved in that project.

[MysteryMiner]

There is nothing better than Bitcoin.

[fabrizziop]

It is hard to tell if its better to invest in LTC or BTC, but there are a couple of facts that would make LTC investment more profitable than BTC in the coming 3 months.  The first fact is there are more services accepting LTC today than it use to be a couple of months ago. The second fact is when ASIC is gonna hit the BTC network, all GPU miners will be directed to LTC, also there would be new FPGA bitstreams for LTC. In return LTC difficulty will increase dramatically. The third fact is LTC price is already rising and its more profitable to mine LTC today than mining BTC. Such LTC price rising will drive LTC difficulty higher in a couple of weeks if not couple of days. LTC difficulty will then keep rising up until it reaches a point where mining LTC is as profitable as mining BTC.

Bottom line you can expect much higher LTC demand, value and difficulty in just 2 months from now.

When ASICs hit bitcoin, I think LTC price will go lower, like namecoin price did when merged mining hits, as people want to get out the last juice of their GPUs before they're sold, and they will sell at any price.

[Energizer]

It is hard to tell if its better to invest in LTC or BTC, but there are a couple of facts that would make LTC investment more profitable than BTC in the coming 3 months.  The first fact is there are more services accepting LTC today than it use to be a couple of months ago. The second fact is when ASIC is gonna hit the BTC network, all GPU miners will be directed to LTC, also there would be new FPGA bitstreams for LTC. In return LTC difficulty will increase dramatically. The third fact is LTC price is already rising and its more profitable to mine LTC today than mining BTC. Such LTC price rising will drive LTC difficulty higher in a couple of weeks if not couple of days. LTC difficulty will then keep rising up until it reaches a point where mining LTC is as profitable as mining BTC.

Bottom line you can expect much higher LTC demand, value and difficulty in just 2 months from now.

When ASICs hit bitcoin, I think LTC price will go lower, like namecoin price did when merged mining hits, as people want to get out the last juice of their GPUs before they're sold, and they will sell at any price.

That would be true on day one, but not in a month after ASIC hits the BTC network. For sure LTC will drop down first, but then it will bounce back to a new price record. Still no one can tell what will precisely happen by that time, its all just speculations!

[tacotime]

There is nothing better than Bitcoin.

Yes there is, in that there's an algorithm that requires 128 kb of fast memory per circuit as opposed to 0 kb of memory for SHA256.  128 kb of cache (or RAM) is not free and takes up a fair amount of die space.  Additionally, GPUs already have absurdly fast RAM onboard.  So instead of a 100x efficiency enhancement for ASICs, we may only see a 2x-10x gain along with higher production values.

In short the gains that will be made with ASIC are likely to be only similar to those made for BTC with FPGAs, which certainly did not stop people from GPU mining.  BTC ASICs will be the death of GPU mining.  Because product cycles are so outrageously quick for GPUs as well, it will be difficult for ASIC manufacturers to keep up.

[HorseRider]

the recent litecoin bubble are running into its end now. in the "mid term", the litecoin will has a much worse performance compared with bitcoin.

[ElectricMucus]

the recent litecoin bubble are running into its end now. in the "mid term", the litecoin will has a much worse performance compared with bitcoin.

Oh nice FUD. wanna play?

The recent bitcoin bubble are running into it's end now. People will realize that the end of the SHA-3 contest means uncertain furture security implactions for bitcoin. In the long term bitcoin will have a worse performance than gold.

Nicely done ignoring my points above about that. How is that for fundamentals?

[DeathAndTaxes]

People will realize that the end of the SHA-3 contest means uncertain furture security implactions for bitcoin.

In related news the launch of 2013 year car lineups is causing uncertainty over the viability of year 2012 cars. 

"I drove my 2012 Toyota Tundra off a cliff, I mean with the release of 2013 Tundra the 2012 must be fatally flawed"
- ElectricMucus

[bobitza]

With (most of) the GPU miners moving to Litecoin how would the price react?

[ElectricMucus]

People will realize that the end of the SHA-3 contest means uncertain furture security implactions for bitcoin.

In related news the launch of 2013 year car lineups is causing uncertainty over the viability of year 2012 cars.  

"I drove my 2012 Toyota Tundra off a cliff, I mean with the release of 2013 Tundra the 2012 must be fatally flawed"
- ElectricMucus

Well, SHA-2 is over a decade old. Granted the over the cliff driving would have the same result with a 2001 car as with a recent one, and litecoin isn't a "recent car" either but that's not what this is about.
I've brought up rational arguments in my post on page1 which were ignored and since people instead resented to FUD I thought I'd return the favor.

I encorage you to reply to my earlier post, and I promise you won't get any ridicolous statements

[mem]

There is nothing better than Bitcoin.

Yes there is, in that there's an algorithm that requires 128 kb of fast memory per circuit as opposed to 0 kb of memory for SHA256.  128 kb of cache (or RAM) is not free and takes up a fair amount of die space.  Additionally, GPUs already have absurdly fast RAM onboard.  So instead of a 100x efficiency enhancement for ASICs, we may only see a 2x-10x gain along with higher production values.

In short the gains that will be made with ASIC are likely to be only similar to those made for BTC with FPGAs, which certainly did not stop people from GPU mining.  BTC ASICs will be the death of GPU mining.  Because product cycles are so outrageously quick for GPUs as well, it will be difficult for ASIC manufacturers to keep up.

Just pure speculation here, but it is a thought I keep having.

AMD already advertise the 7970 as the most "versatile" GPU and I think they enjoyed the drastically increased sales that bitcoin mining farms created.
While as a company they might not endorse bitcoin, I cant see them ignoring us as a potential market.
If they take even more than a passing interest in catering a bit more specifically to bitcoin by adding hashing cores / other to their GPU's Id consider it to be the death of all low level competitors asic/fpga/other.

I think it would be good thing as well, better availability, reliable company, no warranty issues etc etc and they remain a multipurpose device.
The next few generation of gpu's will be very interesting.

[ElectricMucus]

AMD already advertise the 7970 as the most "versatile" GPU and I think they enjoyed the drastically increased sales that bitcoin mining farms created.
While as a company they might not endorse bitcoin, I cant see them ignoring us as a potential market.
If they take even more than a passing interest in catering a bit more specifically to bitcoin by adding hashing cores / other to their GPU's Id consider it to be the death of all low level competitors asic/fpga/other.

I think it would be good thing as well, better availability, reliable company, no warranty issues etc etc and they remain a multipurpose device.
The next few generation of gpu's will be very interesting.

Yes I noticed they specifcally advertise the 7000 series as efficient miners. (Independently of the topic this is great news for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general)
The outcome will depend on whenever our asic companies actually deliver.... Since by your previous posts I recognice you as a BFL sceptic you probably know where I am pointing at.