What is the point of Litecoin if Bitcoin is THE cryptocurrency?

[Gavin Andresen]

Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?

If it's a rhetorical question, that's OK.

If not, I am worried.

Not rhetorical: it needs to be fixed, or your blockchain can easily be forked.

Beware of Altchains that are abandoned or neglected by their developers (activity at https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commits/master doesn't look healthy to me... and now y'all are going to accuse me of spreading FUD, so I'll go away and shut up).

[1714999408]

1714999408

[1714999408]

1714999408

[1714999408]

1714999408

[bitcool]

... and now y'all are going to accuse me of spreading FUD, so I'll go away and shut up).

Not really. That's THE biggest issue that has prevented me from investing more into LTC. Many others have same feeling.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" can only help you go that far ...

[mr_random]

About early adoption, according to you if I invest in Apple stock today I am still an early adopter. It's pointless debating it, because it's a matter of opinion what is early. All we can say for sure is, getting in at 50 cents is a hell of a lot earlier than getting in for 88 dollars. Let's asume the high point of bitcoins and litecoins will be one thousand dollars. What sounds better, a 1,000% return on investment or a 20,000% return on investment? (mental maths there so approximate figures)

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but you need to keep in mind that litecoin has 4x cap of bitcoin so the 50 cents is really $2 if you want to compare it to bitcoin and judge which one is a better value in the long run.

I think that would hold true if a Litecoin was identical to a Bitcoin. But Litecoin has properties that give it an advantage over Bitcoin (fairer mining, faster confirmations). So 1 LTC = 0.25BTC may not be the eventual outcome. Of course, I don't hold a crystal ball and can only speculate like anyone else... time will tell

[sd]

My question is about Litecoin...how or why is there a point to Litecoin if Bitcoin turns out to be THE cryptocurrency?

It's still an open question is BitCoin will turn out to be THE cryptocurrency, only time will tell on that one.

However LiteCoins are just a copy of BitCoin. If BitCoin gets replaced by something it's not going to be with a copy of itself.

[yochdog]

The slogan should be changed to "Litecoin: For butthurt GPU miners."

Disclaimer: I wrote cgminer.

LMFAO......so true.

I am the butthurt GPU miner!! 

[bitcool]

The slogan should be changed to "Litecoin: For butthurt GPU miners."

Disclaimer: I wrote cgminer.

LMFAO......so true.

I am the butthurt GPU miner!! 

Okay, but that's not an excuse for using LTC to treat your rear, coin police says it's not innovative enough.
 

[MaGNeT]

What's the point of opening this topic if you already think Bitcoin is THE cryptocurrency?

[nobbynobbynoob]

LOL @ "coin police"

+litecointip bitcool Ł0,50

[Sunny King]

Okay, but that's not an excuse for using LTC to treat your rear, coin police says it's not innovative enough.
 

It may or may not be innovative enough, however the innovation belongs to ArtForz and tenebrix, not litecoin.

https://github.com/ppcoin/ppcoin/wiki/History-of-cryptocurrency

[rugard]

... and now y'all are going to accuse me of spreading FUD, so I'll go away and shut up).

Not really. That's THE biggest issue that has prevented me from investing more into LTC. Many others have same feeling.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" can only help you go that far ...

Same for me. As far as I know coblee abandoned the project some months ago. Then Greedi called himself lead-dev and made some minor text-file-changes in the repository. Coblee came back in February and said he'd continue developement. But nothing really happend since then. I'd be really happy about some new info from coblee about the development-progress.

reading between the lines from the forum posts below doesn't improve my confidence either:
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1169.0.html
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,973.0.html
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1424.0.html
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1521.0.html

I still like litecoin, but as soon as enough people realize that there's no more progress it will be doomed to fail.

[yvv]

However LiteCoins are just a copy of BitCoin.

Not really a copy. They did some tune ups, but the model is the same.

[matauc12]

Hi Team,

I'm about a week into researching Bitcoin. I really think Bitcoin has great opportunities for growth and own 203.

My question is about Litecoin...how or why is there a point to Litecoin if Bitcoin turns out to be THE cryptocurrency?

It's a HUGE deal for a site (in my mind) to say that they accept Bitcoins for payment. Why or what influence these same sites to accept Bitcoin and Litecoin?

I just don't see the point of Litecoin, because I don't understand the point.

Especially with something like Bitcoin leading the way. In my opinion Litecoin doesn't have much of an advantage for the AVERAGE person. Sure I've heard that it's faster for confirmations...but I feel that for most people those extra 5 mins or so doesn't really matter.

What are your thoughts?

I just see Litecoin (and all crypto-currencies that are clones of Bitcoin) to be a ponzi scheme that early adopters uses to buy Bitcoins. There are lots of GPU miners that no longer make profit mining Bitcoins that switched to mining Litecoin just to buy Bitcoins, how do you call it?

ASIC resistant is not a feature, nothing in this world is ASIC resistant, just most costly to develop. The fact that Litecoin is "ASIC resistant" makes their network more vulnerable to attacks.

I'm ok with competition but currently Litecoin offers nothing of value that Bitcoin already don't offers, and no, faster confirmations are not a selling point for me when you trade the network security for it.

Maybe in a future Bitcoin could face a true innovative competitor, but at the moment i see nothing worth on the horizon.

Do you realize how stupidly biased you sound? "Its not ASIC resistant. Also, since its ASIC resistant, its vulnerable."

I think you read too much dumb posts and can't make an opinion for yourself so gave two opposing reasons....

[tgsrge]

what's the point of euro if usd is THE currency?
what's the point of in-n-out if McDonald's is THE fast food?
what's the point of silver if gold is THE bullion/investment?
what's the point of diaspora if facebook is THE social network?
and i could go on, and on, and on....

Yes, i'm just stupidly biased... and yes, i only read dumb posts... Please, show a little of respect or i will report you.

I said nothing is ASIC resistant or ASIC "immune", it just take more work and resources to make those ASICs. AND i said that excluding ASICs from the equation is a bad idea from Litecoin network security.

Litecoin wiki reads: "Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs) meaning that a malicious entity need only produce a small batch of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined".

Maybe you see advantages i'm unable to see, or maybe is you are smart than me. Anyway my post was only my personal opinion and i think i'm not offending anyone, much less calling stupid other people.

The world is never that simple, things are rarely outright better in all possible ways without some sort of disadvantage. you have to make trade-offs.

Do we want a higher network hashrate at the cost of it being concentrated in the hands of fewer people (asic, fpga, other custom hardware), or a somewhat lower network hashrate spread out amongst a much broader variety of people (gpu, cpu, other "normal" hardware)?
Do we want to try to make custom hardware much less advantageous at the risk that someone might find a way to make them cost-effective anyway?
Do we want the developer to keep tinkering with the code at the risk (as shown in bitcoin) of causing unforessen consequences? if not, do we then want people thinking he might have abandoned the project ?

[kano]

All this guff about resistance to better hardware is just plain rubbish.

When the scrypt algorithm was first used I argued that it would be reasonable to do it in GPU.
It was hotly argued that wasn't possible - it was supposedly only possible on CPU.
Well ... that was clearly wrong

The resistance is only the fact that the income from LTC mining is dismal.
If there is enough monetary force to make people invest in the production of faster hardware, then it will happen.

While LTC is a failure, value wise, it wont happen.
If one day it becomes valuable, it will happen.

[weex]

- It's always good to have an alternative. Remember the bitcoin hardfork recently? If Litecoin stays one version behind Bitcoin we will have Litecoin as a back up and Bitcoin as a test network.

Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?

While I don't consider myself any kind of core developer, I can say that no new version of the Litecoin-QT/litecoind client has been releases since the fork. Since we are on 0.6.3, the boundary between 0.8.x and 0.7 or before does not exist on the network. From what I can understand, there are limitations in BDB that will be solved (and now in the right way) when a 0.8.x-based client is released.

The plan that I've heard expressed is to stay one version behind Bitcoin for the time being.

[matauc12]

Hi Team,

I'm about a week into researching Bitcoin. I really think Bitcoin has great opportunities for growth and own 203.

My question is about Litecoin...how or why is there a point to Litecoin if Bitcoin turns out to be THE cryptocurrency?

It's a HUGE deal for a site (in my mind) to say that they accept Bitcoins for payment. Why or what influence these same sites to accept Bitcoin and Litecoin?

I just don't see the point of Litecoin, because I don't understand the point.

Especially with something like Bitcoin leading the way. In my opinion Litecoin doesn't have much of an advantage for the AVERAGE person. Sure I've heard that it's faster for confirmations...but I feel that for most people those extra 5 mins or so doesn't really matter.

What are your thoughts?

I just see Litecoin (and all crypto-currencies that are clones of Bitcoin) to be a ponzi scheme that early adopters uses to buy Bitcoins. There are lots of GPU miners that no longer make profit mining Bitcoins that switched to mining Litecoin just to buy Bitcoins, how do you call it?

ASIC resistant is not a feature, nothing in this world is ASIC resistant, just most costly to develop. The fact that Litecoin is "ASIC resistant" makes their network more vulnerable to attacks.

I'm ok with competition but currently Litecoin offers nothing of value that Bitcoin already don't offers, and no, faster confirmations are not a selling point for me when you trade the network security for it.

Maybe in a future Bitcoin could face a true innovative competitor, but at the moment i see nothing worth on the horizon.

Do you realize how stupidly biased you sound? "Its not ASIC resistant. Also, since its ASIC resistant, its vulnerable."

I think you read too much dumb posts and can't make an opinion for yourself so gave two opposing reasons....

Yes, i'm just stupidly biased... and yes, i only read dumb posts... Please, show a little of respect or i will report you.

I said nothing is ASIC resistant or ASIC "immune", it just take more work and resources to make those ASICs. AND i said that excluding ASICs from the equation is a bad idea from Litecoin network security.

Litecoin wiki reads: "Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs) meaning that a malicious entity need only produce a small batch of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined".

Maybe you see advantages i'm unable to see, or maybe is you are smart than me. Anyway my post was only my personal opinion and i think i'm not offending anyone, much less calling stupid other people.

How can you say "this is what I said" when its clearly quoted in that same message. I targeted exactly that. The fact you said nothing is resistant. Because it is resistant. Not immune.

Sure your last message makes more sense and is what you should have written. However, IT IS NOT what you have written. The fact you somehow kinda wanted to dodge that should make you understand where stupid comes from.

[tacotime]

Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?

It was my understanding that we avoided the problem by simply never upgrading the software beyond 0.6.3c.  Your userbase makes for a better testnet than our userbase because it's larger.

My impression of the bug leading to the fork was that 0.8.0 allowed the mining of blocks greater than the allowable size in the older clients, and that the adoption of 0.8.0 by half the network was what led to the fork.  If I'm wrong, please correct me (you'd be the one to know).

If 0.8.1 works well, we will probably see an update to the client for it later this year.

Edit: Reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0050 , I see this may affect Litecoin
Can we use a file called DB_CONFIG in the Litecoin data dir that contains

Code:

set_lg_dir database
set_lk_max_locks 120000

To temporarily fix this until we update to 0.8.1?

If so I will give the heads up to pool ops

[wtogami]

- It's always good to have an alternative. Remember the bitcoin hardfork recently? If Litecoin stays one version behind Bitcoin we will have Litecoin as a back up and Bitcoin as a test network.

Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?

While I don't consider myself any kind of core developer, I can say that no new version of the Litecoin-QT/litecoind client has been releases since the fork. Since we are on 0.6.3, the boundary between 0.8.x and 0.7 or before does not exist on the network. From what I can understand, there are limitations in BDB that will be solved (and now in the right way) when a 0.8.x-based client is released.

The plan that I've heard expressed is to stay one version behind Bitcoin for the time being.

The potential issue is larger in scope than merely the accidental fork we witnessed between 0.8.0 and previous versions on March 12th.   There exists a difficult but possible "reorg attack" that can cause litecoin-0.6.3 nodes to hardfork from each other.  All current Litecoin clients have this self-consistency issue.  This necessitates Litecoin to prepare for a Bitcoin May 15th-like hardfork.

coblee earlier did express a desire for Litecoin to remain "one version behind Bitcoin" as a conservative maintenance strategy.  However, since a hardfork for the BDB issue is required anyway, he seemed to agree to upgrade directly to 0.8.x in the next release.  He wanted to wait and see what happens after Bitcoin's May 15th hardfork before proceeding.

If unable to rebase 0.8.x and be fully confident in it soon, Litecoin should consider releasing a new build of 0.6.3 with a similar hardfork patch that increases the set_lk_max_locks limit for all users on a particular future date.  The risk would be very small for such a minor patch release since the testing was already done for Bitcoin.

[wtogami]

Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?

It was my understanding that we avoided the problem by simply never upgrading the software beyond 0.6.3c.  Your userbase makes for a better testnet than our userbase because it's larger.

My impression of the bug leading to the fork was that 0.8.0 allowed the mining of blocks greater than the allowable size in the older clients, and that the adoption of 0.8.0 by half the network was what led to the fork.  If I'm wrong, please correct me (you'd be the one to know).

If 0.8.1 works well, we will probably see an update to the client for it later this year.

Edit: Reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0050 , I see this may affect Litecoin
Can we use a file called DB_CONFIG in the Litecoin data dir that contains

Code:

set_lg_dir database
set_lk_max_locks 120000

To temporarily fix this until we update to 0.8.1?

If so I will give the heads up to pool ops

No!!!!

The DB_CONFIG workaround effectively forces a hardfork from the default BDB limits of all Litecoin clients.  Everyone has to do this at the same time in order to ensure that they keep up with the blockchain.  Note that the Bitcoin alert tells miners to NOT do it until May 15th for this reason.

Edit: Coblee decided to just wait for 0.8.x to fix this problem.

[tgsrge]

All this guff about resistance to better hardware is just plain rubbish.

When the scrypt algorithm was first used I argued that it would be reasonable to do it in GPU.
It was hotly argued that wasn't possible - it was supposedly only possible on CPU.
Well ... that was clearly wrong

The resistance is only the fact that the income from LTC mining is dismal.
If there is enough monetary force to make people invest in the production of faster hardware, then it will happen.

While LTC is a failure, value wise, it wont happen.
If one day it becomes valuable, it will happen.

define "better hardware". if by "better hardware" you mean custom hardware like fpga and asic then you are wrong.

scrypt requires memory. period. there is no known way to get around this (besides various time-memory tradeoffs which are probably possible, but this is expected and doesnt really give any advantage to anyone). the person (he has since left the scene) who picked the parameters for scrypt in litecoin missed a few things, and claimed (and this led others, including the main dev afaik/iirc to do the same) that gpu mining would not be economical in litecoin. this obviously turned out not to be the case, but just because someone thought (or led others to think) the scrypt parameters they picked provided things it didnt does not mean scrypt is flawed.

scrypt was MADE to make parallelization much, much less economical (again because of the memory requirements) and as far as anyone knows publicy, this is still the case, and it will continue to be the case until someone either comes out with a paper, or publicy prove they are able to pull it off by doing it in practice.

i expect custom hardware to have an advantage over gpu mining but it will not be anywhere even close to the scale in which it happens in bitcoin.