Litecoin Dev. Team ?

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

The Bitcoin fork event looks to have been handled swiftly, it does highlight the still experimental nature of Bitcoin and seems to be an excellent argument in favour of Litecoin, I would be interested to know who the Litecoin Dev. Team consist of and whether they would handle some similar event as well as it appears the Bitcoin Dev team has .

[John (John K.)]

AFAIK Coblee and Greedi is the dev team.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

If they had upgraded to use LevelDB like 0.8 then the same event would have happened if Litecoin had more users. Only worse.

[El Cabron]

AFAIK Coblee and Greedi is the dev team.

Greedi is long gone, failed coup of all things...

[Palmdetroit]

Bitcoin is alpha litecoin is beta

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

If they had upgraded to use LevelDB like 0.8 then the same event would have happened if Litecoin had more users. Only worse.

is there a reason why liecoin hadn't been upgraded ?

[Atruk]

Bitcoin is alpha litecoin is beta

I believe it is more Bitcoin is a beta, while Litecoin is Pre-Alpha EXPERIMENTAL: DEV BRANCH.

As screwed as Bitcoin might appear right now, this hiccup is just Bitcoin getting screwed in the sense that its getting its dick a little wet.

Litecoin yet to attain sufficient value to demonstrate its central promise, that it can resist attacks from specialized hardware (it lost a weaker version of this when GPU mining started). Now that it's gaining some value people might test the strong version of this. In the interim it does the typical cryptocoin things alright, and is useful for those tasks.

[smoothie]

AFAIK Coblee and Greedi is the dev team.

Coblee and LaSeek.


Greedi went awol.

[Deprived]

If they had upgraded to use LevelDB like 0.8 then the same event would have happened if Litecoin had more users. Only worse.

is there a reason why liecoin hadn't been upgraded ?

Yeah - we like to try things out on our test system (Bitcoin) before deploying them

[El Cabron]

Bitcoin is alpha litecoin is beta

Bitcoin is forked, Litecoin is fine 

[El Cabron]

If they had upgraded to use LevelDB like 0.8 then the same event would have happened if Litecoin had more users. Only worse.

is there a reason why liecoin hadn't been upgraded ?

Yeah - we like to try things out on our test system (Bitcoin) before deploying them

This is so true 

[Palmdetroit]

Bitcoin is alpha litecoin is beta

I believe it is more Bitcoin is a beta, while Litecoin is Pre-Alpha EXPERIMENTAL: DEV BRANCH.

As screwed as Bitcoin might appear right now, this hiccup is just Bitcoin getting screwed in the sense that its getting its dick a little wet.

Litecoin yet to attain sufficient value to demonstrate its central promise, that it can resist attacks from specialized hardware (it lost a weaker version of this when GPU mining started). Now that it's gaining some value people might test the strong version of this. In the interim it does the typical cryptocoin things alright, and is useful for those tasks.

Wow weird I thought with all the ASIC stuff bitcoin was becoming more centralized and litecoin more decentralized . I always thought the main benefit with crypto was decentralization, not centralization.

oh wait that's right.

[smoothie]

If they had upgraded to use LevelDB like 0.8 then the same event would have happened if Litecoin had more users. Only worse.

is there a reason why liecoin hadn't been upgraded ?

Yeah - we like to try things out on our test system (Bitcoin) before deploying them

I LOLed here. 

[weex]

Litecoin-qt/litecoind development has stalled since the 0.6.3 release. I fear that if this had happened to Litecoin, a 51% attack may have been attempted at the same time. In any case, it's important to realize that development is not without risk. It may make sense for Litecoin to trail Bitcoin development (like not go to 0.8 yet) until it has the development resources to fix a similar issue. Since we're all in this together in some respect, I believe many of the core Bitcoin developers would take an active and immedate interest in fixing a similar issue were it to happen to Litecoin. At $6-7m market cap, Litecoin is starting to expand the monetary base of cryptocurrencies where for so long Bitcoin was the only game.

[smoothie]

Litecoin-qt/litecoind development has stalled since the 0.6.3 release. I fear that if this had happened to Litecoin, a 51% attack may have been attempted at the same time. In any case, it's important to realize that development is not without risk. It may make sense for Litecoin to trail Bitcoin development (like not go to 0.8 yet) until it has the development resources to fix a similar issue. Since we're all in this together in some respect, I believe many of the core Bitcoin developers would take an active and immedate interest in fixing a similar issue were it to happen to Litecoin. At $6-7m market cap, Litecoin is starting to expand the monetary base of cryptocurrencies where for so long Bitcoin was the only game.

I agree, staying one version behind bitcoin isn't a bad idea from a development standpoint.