Simple Solution to S.Dice spam

[justusranvier]

But in bitcoin's case, they are connected together, a higher transaction capacity cause centralization and decrease the value of bitcoin

The exact opposite is the case.

Higher transaction capacity means higher transaction fee revenue. If you don't believe this, just look at the data: http://blockchain.info/charts. Anyone who wants to argue that higher limits results in declining fees needs to explain exactly what will cause the observed relationship to reverse.

Higher total transaction fee revenue means more bitcoins for miners to compete for, which means more miners will compete for them. Shortly after Bitcoin reaches the transaction rate of PayPal transaction fees will equal the block reward. It will be like going back to 50 BTC/block as far as miner revenue is concerned. More people are willing to invest the necessary capital to compete for 50 BTC/block than are willing to invest for 25 BTC/block.

[1715179051]

1715179051

[1715179051]

1715179051

[1715179051]

1715179051

[1715179051]

1715179051

[1715179051]

1715179051

[kokojie]

The worst part about Litecoin is not it's pointless technical differences but that it is essentially a ponzi scheme: Doomed to collapse, and rewards early adopters (who know it will fail). This explains why Litecoin fetishists are absolutely the most vocal segment of the board in promoting their alternate "cryptocurrency."

You realize what you said is actually more accurate describe Bitcoin? There's nearly no early Adopters in Litecoin, mining power was significant from day one, coin value has been quite stable from the start.

[mccorvic]

The worst part about Litecoin is not it's pointless technical differences but that it is essentially a ponzi scheme: Doomed to collapse, and rewards early adopters (who know it will fail). This explains why Litecoin fetishists are absolutely the most vocal segment of the board in promoting their alternate "cryptocurrency."

You realize what you said is actually more accurate describe Bitcoin? There's nearly no early Adopters in Litecoin, mining power was significant from day one, coin value has been quite stable from the start.

While you're right that this is what people said about BTC, I do think it applies to LTC much more.  The LTC folk got emo-sad they couldn't print their own money anymore so made a new coin to scam...er...encourage people to adopt.  Do you think they have any sort of true belief in their idea? Of course not.  If LTC picked up at all they'd dump, create a new coin and say "No, we're using this one now. It's so much FASTER!"

[kokojie]

Explain?

Sigh. One of (if not the) biggest draw of bitcoin is that the 21million hardcap prevents inflation.  Whenever some script kiddie makes their own alt-coin it is a basic attempt to create inflation and devalue other coins.  It's not like LTC has any physically unique properties that truly differentiates itself from bitcoin. There's more of them and the confirm "faster", but it's use is exactly the same.  

People are smart enough to realize that if any alt-coins actually become worth anything, they'll be playing a losing a game.  Why buy bitcoin or anything else if some emo-kid can just make a new fork-coin and devalue what I have over and over?  

If you're worried about bitcoin, dump your LTC, buy some real coin and the world will be better for it.

I don't understand the logic, crytocoins is not a zero sum game. What you are saying is there's Apple, Microsoft, IBM on nasdaq, and if we have a new company called Google, we are de-valuing all the other companies. That's a ridiculous logic.

I'm saying it IS a zero sum game.  When Microsoft competes against apple, they are producing new products that are better and better that people demand and will continue to consume. Even gold and silver have different physical properties that can be used which differentiate themselves from one another.

LTC does the exact same thing as bitcoin.  

First LTC isn't the exact same thing as BTC, there are several significant differences, confirmation time, mining hardware requirement, block size and divisibility.

Second, even things that are exact the same, can become non-zero sum game. Consider USD and EUR, they function exactly the same, fiat money to be used as legal tender, are they a zero sum game? more USD means less EURO? Your logic is still ridiculous.

[misterbigg]

...I do think it applies to LTC much more....

It is absolutely amazing to see the level of effort and determination that Litecoin zealots put into pumping their turd.

[kokojie]

The worst part about Litecoin is not it's pointless technical differences but that it is essentially a ponzi scheme: Doomed to collapse, and rewards early adopters (who know it will fail). This explains why Litecoin fetishists are absolutely the most vocal segment of the board in promoting their alternate "cryptocurrency."

You realize what you said is actually more accurate describe Bitcoin? There's nearly no early Adopters in Litecoin, mining power was significant from day one, coin value has been quite stable from the start.

While you're right that this is what people said about BTC, I do think it applies to LTC much more.  The LTC folk got emo-sad they couldn't print their own money anymore so made a new coin to scam...er...encourage people to adopt.  Do you think they have any sort of true belief in their idea? Of course not.  If LTC picked up at all they'd dump, create a new coin and say "No, we're using this one now. It's so much FASTER!"

No they foresaw a problem and created a possible solution, which is what I just proposed, LTC can easily solve the transaction spam problem that S.Dice is creating for the Bitcoin chain.

[mccorvic]

Explain?

Sigh. One of (if not the) biggest draw of bitcoin is that the 21million hardcap prevents inflation.  Whenever some script kiddie makes their own alt-coin it is a basic attempt to create inflation and devalue other coins.  It's not like LTC has any physically unique properties that truly differentiates itself from bitcoin. There's more of them and the confirm "faster", but it's use is exactly the same.  

People are smart enough to realize that if any alt-coins actually become worth anything, they'll be playing a losing a game.  Why buy bitcoin or anything else if some emo-kid can just make a new fork-coin and devalue what I have over and over?  

If you're worried about bitcoin, dump your LTC, buy some real coin and the world will be better for it.

I don't understand the logic, crytocoins is not a zero sum game. What you are saying is there's Apple, Microsoft, IBM on nasdaq, and if we have a new company called Google, we are de-valuing all the other companies. That's a ridiculous logic.

I'm saying it IS a zero sum game.  When Microsoft competes against apple, they are producing new products that are better and better that people demand and will continue to consume. Even gold and silver have different physical properties that can be used which differentiate themselves from one another.

LTC does the exact same thing as bitcoin.  

First LTC isn't the exact same thing as BTC, there are several significant differences, confirmation time, mining hardware requirement, block size and divisibility.

Second, even things that are exact the same, can become non-zero sum game. Consider USD and EUR, they function exactly the same, fiat money to be used as legal tender, are they a zero sum game? more USD means less EURO? Your logic is still ridiculous.

You're just proving that you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this. The difference between USD and Euro, really? I need to explain this? I'm in Europe can I use USD just anywhere? Oh gee golly I can't. That means there's some sort of difference between the two. Also, they way the governments behind each backs/prints/controls/taxes/ect creates real differences.

Those differences between LTC an BTC are so minor and really don't amount to much.  Do we have some sort of divisibility issue with BTC? No, so whatever LTC divisibility there is is moot.  Mining requirement?  It'll be upgraded eventually just like BTC went through if it were to take off. The only one that I can see that has an edge is maybe confirmation time. But again, as soon as super-litecoin that is 5X faster then LTC is worthless and the whole thing dies.

[johnyj]

But in bitcoin's case, they are connected together, a higher transaction capacity cause centralization and decrease the value of bitcoin

The exact opposite is the case.

Higher transaction capacity means higher transaction fee revenue. If you don't believe this, just look at the data: http://blockchain.info/charts. Anyone who wants to argue that higher limits results in declining fees needs to explain exactly what will cause the observed relationship to reverse.

Higher total transaction fee revenue means more bitcoins for miners to compete for, which means more miners will compete for them. Shortly after Bitcoin reaches the transaction rate of PayPal transaction fees will equal the block reward. It will be like going back to 50 BTC/block as far as miner revenue is concerned. More people are willing to invest the necessary capital to compete for 50 BTC/block than are willing to invest for 25 BTC/block.

This is the same logic as to say more money will create more GDP, so remove the 21M coin limit so that there will be even more block reward

If there is no transaction limit, the majority of transactions will be generated by automated trading program, not human user. If there is a limit, the price of each transaction will go higher so that each one will plan their transaction more carefully, or create off chain transaction (which is the best solution IMO)

[misterbigg]

You're just proving that you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this.

What's funny is the way that Litecoin is being touted as the cure for practically any ill. Transaction spam on the Bitcoin network? Use Litecoin! Marriage trouble? Litecoin will fix it! Constipated? Litecoin will get your bowels moving again!

No matter what the problem, Litecoin zealots will rush to point out why their cryptocurrency is superior to everything else. The common denominators are a complete lack of technical knowledge or development skills, and that they consistently ignore facts. Really Litecoin is more of a religion that requires "faith."

[kokojie]

Explain?

Sigh. One of (if not the) biggest draw of bitcoin is that the 21million hardcap prevents inflation.  Whenever some script kiddie makes their own alt-coin it is a basic attempt to create inflation and devalue other coins.  It's not like LTC has any physically unique properties that truly differentiates itself from bitcoin. There's more of them and the confirm "faster", but it's use is exactly the same.  

People are smart enough to realize that if any alt-coins actually become worth anything, they'll be playing a losing a game.  Why buy bitcoin or anything else if some emo-kid can just make a new fork-coin and devalue what I have over and over?  

If you're worried about bitcoin, dump your LTC, buy some real coin and the world will be better for it.

I don't understand the logic, crytocoins is not a zero sum game. What you are saying is there's Apple, Microsoft, IBM on nasdaq, and if we have a new company called Google, we are de-valuing all the other companies. That's a ridiculous logic.

I'm saying it IS a zero sum game.  When Microsoft competes against apple, they are producing new products that are better and better that people demand and will continue to consume. Even gold and silver have different physical properties that can be used which differentiate themselves from one another.

LTC does the exact same thing as bitcoin.  

First LTC isn't the exact same thing as BTC, there are several significant differences, confirmation time, mining hardware requirement, block size and divisibility.

Second, even things that are exact the same, can become non-zero sum game. Consider USD and EUR, they function exactly the same, fiat money to be used as legal tender, are they a zero sum game? more USD means less EURO? Your logic is still ridiculous.

You're just proving that you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this. The difference between USD and Euro, really? I need to explain this? I'm in Europe can I use USD just anywhere? Oh gee golly I can't. That means there's some sort of difference between the two. Also, they way the governments behind each backs/prints/controls/taxes/ect creates real differences.

Those differences between LTC an BTC are so minor and really don't amount to much.  Do we have some sort of divisibility issue with BTC? No, so whatever LTC divisibility there is is moot.  Mining requirement?  It'll be upgraded eventually just like BTC went through if it were to take off. The only one that I can see that has an edge is maybe confirmation time. But again, as soon as super-litecoin that is 5X faster then LTC is worthless and the whole thing dies.

You actually could use your USD anywhere in Europe, by simply exchanging them for EUR, pretty much same process as exchanging BTC for LTC. Actually BTC-E does exactly this, they can exchange your USD for EUR or your BTC for LTC.

[conv3rsion]

If there is no transaction limit, the majority of transactions will be generated by automated trading program, not human user. If there is a limit, the price of each transaction will go higher so that each one will plan their transaction more carefully, or create off chain transaction (which is the best solution IMO)

There is a difference between a flexible and growing transaction limit (that scales with computing resources), and no limit (that leaves it completely up to the miners whether to include free transactions or not). A growing limit is not the same as no limit. If you want a hard permanent transaction limit then you also want a permanent limit in the number of transactions that Bitcoin can EVER process, which will cripple it. So why do you want to cripple Bitcoin?

bitcoins are divisible (so they can "scale"). Transactions aren't (so they can't). They are completely different "resources".

[kokojie]

If there is no transaction limit, the majority of transactions will be generated by automated trading program, not human user. If there is a limit, the price of each transaction will go higher so that each one will plan their transaction more carefully, or create off chain transaction (which is the best solution IMO)

There is a difference between a flexible and growing transaction limit (that scales with computing resources), and no limit (that leaves it completely up to the miners whether to include free transactions or not). A growing limit is not the same as no limit. If you want a hard permanent transaction limit then you also want a permanent limit in the number of transactions that Bitcoin can EVER process, which will cripple it. So why do you want to cripple Bitcoin?

bitcoins are divisible (so they can "scale"). Transactions aren't (so they can't). They are completely different "resources".

You don't understand, the Bitcoin protocol isn't designed for massive amount of transactions, because all transaction has to be stored, the blockchain will grow exponentially in size. If we have 10X more transactions now, the chain size will be nearly a terabyte by end of next year. Also, huge block size makes it difficult for miners to download, because all miners have to download the new block, before they could continue to mine.

I'd say Bitcoin by design, require at least one alt-coin to complement it.

[mccorvic]

You actually could use your USD anywhere in Europe, by simply exchanging them for EUR, pretty much same process as exchanging BTC for LTC. Actually BTC-E does exactly this, they can exchange your USD for EUR or your BTC for LTC.

You just proved my point.  If I'm going to Europe I need to exchange my USD because the Euro is different than USD.

I could exchange BTC for LTC or vice versa...but why? They do the exact same thing.  I gain nothing from trading BTC for LTC except to maybe dump the LTC later or run back to BTC when Super-LTC gets released.

[kokojie]

You actually could use your USD anywhere in Europe, by simply exchanging them for EUR, pretty much same process as exchanging BTC for LTC. Actually BTC-E does exactly this, they can exchange your USD for EUR or your BTC for LTC.

You just proved my point.  If I'm going to Europe I need to exchange my USD because the Euro is different than USD.

I could exchange BTC for LTC or vice versa...but why? They do the exact same thing.  I gain nothing from trading BTC for LTC except to maybe dump the LTC later or run back to BTC when Super-LTC gets released.

Because they aren't the same thing? Try buy 1 share of LTC-GLOBAL with Bitcoin? you can't, you have to exchange BTC to LTC first, just like you have to exchange USD to EUR.

[justusranvier]

because all transaction has to be stored

Not true

Also, huge block size makes it difficult for miners to download

Fixable

[conv3rsion]

You don't understand, the Bitcoin protocol isn't designed for massive amount of transactions, because all transaction has to be stored, the blockchain will grow exponentially in size. If we have 10X more transactions now, the chain size will be nearly a terabyte next year. Also, huge block size makes it difficult for miners to download, because all miners have to download the new block, before they could continue to mine.

No, you don't understand. The blockchain can only grow exponentially if the block size limit is completely removed (which it doesn't have to be). As long as a balance is maintained which allows for reasonable and competitive transaction fees, ideally on the order of a few cents in USD, we don't have to worry about high frequencey trade spamming.

And oh my god, nearly a whole TB in another year? Shit I only have 10 of those free at my house right now. Did you know that storage actually gets cheaper over time?  Some Moore guy's rule or something.  Too bad I can't run a full node on my phone, probably should constrain Bitcoin over it.

The block size limit doesn't have to be larger than what most miners can download with reasonable bandwidth. It just has to scale at some rate. All computing resources scale, our transactional capacity HAS TO as well.

[mccorvic]

Because they aren't the same thing? Try buy 1 share of LTC-GLOBAL with Bitcoin? you can't, you have to exchange BTC to LTC first, just like you have to exchange USD to EUR.

That has nothing to do with the functionality of BTC or LTC. At best, it's hoping that you can split the Internet into two camps and one half will accept only LTC and the other BTC. There's no fundamental, technical reason any site you point me to COULDN'T take BTC except they "just don't feel like it".  This will only draw away from the total user base of BTC and promote the problem of "Why should I buy any crypto-coin if so-and-so 12 year-old is just going to make a new one and devalue my coin and make me switch over".

I don't know if you realize it, but you're just diggin' a deeper hole for yourself here.

[Bitobsessed]

Explain?

Sigh. One of (if not the) biggest draw of bitcoin is that the 21million hardcap prevents inflation.  Whenever some script kiddie makes their own alt-coin it is a basic attempt to create inflation and devalue other coins.  It's not like LTC has any physically unique properties that truly differentiates itself from bitcoin. There's more of them and the confirm "faster", but it's use is exactly the same.  

People are smart enough to realize that if any alt-coins actually become worth anything, they'll be playing a losing a game.  Why buy bitcoin or anything else if some emo-kid can just make a new fork-coin and devalue what I have over and over?  

If you're worried about bitcoin, dump your LTC, buy some real coin and the world will be better for it.

I don't understand the logic, crytocoins is not a zero sum game. What you are saying is there's Apple, Microsoft, IBM on nasdaq, and if we have a new company called Google, we are de-valuing all the other companies. That's a ridiculous logic.

I'm saying it IS a zero sum game.  When Microsoft competes against apple, they are producing new products that are better and better that people demand and will continue to consume. Even gold and silver have different physical properties that can be used which differentiate themselves from one another.

LTC does the exact same thing as bitcoin.  

First LTC isn't the exact same thing as BTC, there are several significant differences, confirmation time, mining hardware requirement, block size and divisibility.

Second, even things that are exact the same, can become non-zero sum game. Consider USD and EUR, they function exactly the same, fiat money to be used as legal tender, are they a zero sum game? more USD means less EURO? Your logic is still ridiculous.

You're just proving that you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this. The difference between USD and Euro, really? I need to explain this? I'm in Europe can I use USD just anywhere? Oh gee golly I can't. That means there's some sort of difference between the two. Also, they way the governments behind each backs/prints/controls/taxes/ect creates real differences.

Those differences between LTC an BTC are so minor and really don't amount to much.  Do we have some sort of divisibility issue with BTC? No, so whatever LTC divisibility there is is moot.  Mining requirement?  It'll be upgraded eventually just like BTC went through if it were to take off. The only one that I can see that has an edge is maybe confirmation time. But again, as soon as super-litecoin that is 5X faster then LTC is worthless and the whole thing dies.

And you have just proved you have never even tried LTC.  I have used BTC for quite a while and prefer BTC "only" because the network security is so much greater than LTC right now.  But if all things were equal, I would much rather use LTC for its speed.

Also you are saying in a round about way because gold was used for trade before silver, we should just throw away our silver because its just a copy of what gold does better...pfft.  You also have no idea of why LTC was created.  Here is a hint and you think about it for a while: It was created to support Bitcoin.

[mccorvic]

And you have just proved you have never even tried LTC.  I have used BTC for quite a while and prefer BTC "only" because the network security is so much greater than LTC right now.  But if all things were equal, I would much rather use LTC for its speed.

Also you are saying in a round about way because gold was used for trade before silver, we should just throw away our silver because its just a copy of what gold does better...pfft.  You also have no idea of why LTC was created.  Here is a hint and you think about it for a while: It was created to support Bitcoin.

Not good reading comprehension.  Silver and gold are different because they are physically different.  Like, the actual atoms. Different.

You can say whatever reason you think "LTC was created for". I'm telling you what it will do.

BTC right now has the leg up, the foundation, and actual creators and doers working for it. If you think LTC is the way to go because of the speed, then just wait for Super-LTC. Then Mega-LTC. Lighting-LTC. You're going to be chasing that forever and then realize no one gives a shit because the whole experiment is either dead, or everyone with BTC is laughing at you. One of the two, but I'd prefer the BTC option.

Now, I want to make clear that I don't see LTC as a threat, or issue.  I fundamentally believe people are smart enough to act in their best interests and completely ignore it. 

[Bitobsessed]

And you have just proved you have never even tried LTC.  I have used BTC for quite a while and prefer BTC "only" because the network security is so much greater than LTC right now.  But if all things were equal, I would much rather use LTC for its speed.

Also you are saying in a round about way because gold was used for trade before silver, we should just throw away our silver because its just a copy of what gold does better...pfft.  You also have no idea of why LTC was created.  Here is a hint and you think about it for a while: It was created to support Bitcoin.

Not good reading comprehension.  Silver and gold are different because they are physically different.  Like, the actual atoms. Different.

You can say whatever reason you think "LTC was created for". I'm telling you what it will do.

BTC right now has the leg up, the foundation, and actual creators and doers working for it. If you think LTC is the way to go because of the speed, then just wait for Super-LTC. Then Mega-LTC. Lighting-LTC. You're going to be chasing that forever and then realize no one gives a shit because the whole experiment is either dead, or everyone with BTC is laughing at you. One of the two, but I'd prefer the BTC option.

Has nothing to do with having a leg up.  I completely agree that BTC is better because of the support, but just dismissing LTC for the reasons you stated is silly.  It is also NO threat to BTC