Simple Solution to S.Dice spam

[kokojie]

Ask S.Dice to add a "LTC mode", similar to SatoshiRoulette, DiceonCrack and other gambling sites have done. A LOT of gamblers, including me, prefer to bet in LTC, because of the fast confirmation makes it a smoother experience. I estimate at least half of S.Dice's volume will move over to the "LTC mode", instantly reducing the spam by half on the Bitcoin chain.

[WikileaksDude]

this is more stupid than drinking bleach

[mccorvic]

LTC is a joke. Next please.

[nebulus]

Smart idea...

[WiW]

Enough with these threads. There is no spam. The network is super healthy. SDice is using something cheap and they're paying for it. Delete these threads!

You don't get to pick who uses bitcoin for what. If you don't like it, go print your own fiat and regulate it however you want. If you don't trust the design of bitcoin to sort this stuff out then don't use bitcoin.

I don't like how YOU use bitcoins but nobody gives a shit.

Also, abolish the dumb max block size limit and the "problem" is solved.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149745.0

[johnyj]

Enough with these threads. There is no spam. The network is super healthy. SDice is using something cheap and they're paying for it. Delete these threads!

You don't get to pick who uses bitcoin for what. If you don't like it, go print your own fiat and regulate it however you want. If you don't trust the design of bitcoin to sort this stuff out then don't use bitcoin.

I don't like how YOU use bitcoins but nobody gives a shit.

Also, abolish the dumb max block size limit and the "problem" is solved.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149745.0

You should also abolish the 21 million coin limit, so that you can get more coin 

[kokojie]

Enough with these threads. There is no spam. The network is super healthy. SDice is using something cheap and they're paying for it. Delete these threads!

You don't get to pick who uses bitcoin for what. If you don't like it, go print your own fiat and regulate it however you want. If you don't trust the design of bitcoin to sort this stuff out then don't use bitcoin.

I don't like how YOU use bitcoins but nobody gives a shit.

Also, abolish the dumb max block size limit and the "problem" is solved.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149745.0

That's a bad idea, creating a hard fork is bad for the confidence of Bitcoin. So we hard fork the coin now to increase the block size, what's next? hard fork the coin to increase the 21M coin limit?

There is actually also a simple solution for the block size limit. Use LTC for daily transactions, like I proposed, a "LTC mode" on S.Dice, and everywhere else. LTC can handle 4X more transactions than BTC. BTC can be used as a reserve currency, while LTC used as a transactional currency.

[mccorvic]

Enough with these threads. There is no spam. The network is super healthy. SDice is using something cheap and they're paying for it. Delete these threads!

You don't get to pick who uses bitcoin for what. If you don't like it, go print your own fiat and regulate it however you want. If you don't trust the design of bitcoin to sort this stuff out then don't use bitcoin.

I don't like how YOU use bitcoins but nobody gives a shit.

Also, abolish the dumb max block size limit and the "problem" is solved.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149745.0

That's a bad idea, creating a hard fork is bad for the confidence of Bitcoin. So we hard fork the coin now to increase the block size, what's next? hard fork the coin to increase the 21M coin limit?

LTC undermines cryto-currency in its entirety, so obviously you don't care to much about that.

[kokojie]

Enough with these threads. There is no spam. The network is super healthy. SDice is using something cheap and they're paying for it. Delete these threads!

You don't get to pick who uses bitcoin for what. If you don't like it, go print your own fiat and regulate it however you want. If you don't trust the design of bitcoin to sort this stuff out then don't use bitcoin.

I don't like how YOU use bitcoins but nobody gives a shit.

Also, abolish the dumb max block size limit and the "problem" is solved.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149745.0

That's a bad idea, creating a hard fork is bad for the confidence of Bitcoin. So we hard fork the coin now to increase the block size, what's next? hard fork the coin to increase the 21M coin limit?

LTC undermines cryto-currency in its entirety, so obviously you don't care to much about that.

Explain?

[justusranvier]

You should also abolish the 21 million coin limit, so that you can get more coin 

Transaction processing is a service whose value is proportional to it's speed, low cost, and Metcalfe's law.

Bitcoins are virtual objects whose value is depends on the inability of any entity to create more of them arbitrarily.

[kokojie]

You should also abolish the 21 million coin limit, so that you can get more coin  

Transaction processing is a service whose value is proportional to it's speed, low cost, and Metcalfe's law.

Bitcoins are virtual objects whose value is depends on the inability of any entity to create more of them arbitrarily.

You can create more Bitcoin with a hard fork, just like you can increase the block size limit with a hard fork. Once a hard fork happens in Bitcoin, I'm out, there's no guarantee Bitcoin's 21M limit won't be lifted with another hard fork.

[justusranvier]

You can create more Bitcoin with a hard fork, just like you can increase the block size limit with a hard fork. Once a hard fork happens in Bitcoin, I'm out, there's no guarantee Bitcoin's 21M limit won't be lifted with another hard fork.

You can call it a hard fork, or you can call it a mandatory upgrade version 3 blocks.

Either way I'm not worried about it because:

1) It's an upgrade that was discussed as eventually being necessary literally from the beginning so I don't consider it to be a change to the nature of Bitcoin.

2) Far more people will go along with a change that increases the value of the network than a change that destroys it. A majority of users who are willing to change the 21M limit is indistinguishable from a 51% attack, so in that case Bitcoin is doomed regardless of whether we change the transaction limit or not.

[conv3rsion]

You should also abolish the 21 million coin limit, so that you can get more coin  

Transaction processing is a service whose value is proportional to it's speed, low cost, and Metcalfe's law.

Bitcoins are virtual objects whose value is depends on the inability of any entity to create more of them arbitrarily.

You can create more Bitcoin with a hard fork, just like you can increase the block size limit with a hard fork. Once a hard fork happens in Bitcoin, I'm out, there's no guarantee Bitcoin's 21M limit won't be lifted with another hard fork.

So why wouldn't you wait until the 21M limit fork was proposed to leave?

Let me make it really simple for you. Increasing the block size increases the maximum number of transactions that Bitcoin can support, which increases the amount of economic activity that can be conducted in bitcoins, which increases the value of a bitcoin. Increasing the 21M limit decreases the value of a bitcoin. One decision helps Bitcoin, the other undermines it. All "forks" are not equal.

[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.

[johnyj]

You should also abolish the 21 million coin limit, so that you can get more coin 

Transaction processing is a service whose value is proportional to it's speed, low cost, and Metcalfe's law.

Bitcoins are virtual objects whose value is depends on the inability of any entity to create more of them arbitrarily.

From transaction service sector point of view, what you said is true, because they do not need to worry about the value of currency it transfer

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

[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 etc.. on nasdaq, and if we have a new company called Google, we are de-valuing all the other companies. That's a ridiculous logic.

[misterbigg]

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."

[johnyj]

Increasing the block size increases the maximum number of transactions that Bitcoin can support, which increases the amount of economic activity that can be conducted in bitcoins, which increases the value of a bitcoin. Increasing the 21M limit decreases the value of a bitcoin. One decision helps Bitcoin, the other undermines it. All "forks" are not equal.

Do you understand that when you increase the hard block size limit, you create another 21M of bitcoin?

[misterbigg]

Do you understand that when you increase the hard block size limit, you create another 21M of bitcoin?

/facepalm

[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.