Litecoin implementing confidential transactions

[spartak_t]

It is a start for Litecoin, but Litecoin is going to have to deal with its effective 4 MB blocksize limit every 10 min.

This is assuming there isn't a repeat of the ETH/ETC fiasco.

I find it odd that after several years of the claim that "Litecoin does not need development" there is now an attempt to include privacy enhancing features. What happened?

Why the change of heart?

Block size limit is an issue, but so is not having a tail emission to incentivize miners after block rewards hit 0.

I think the statement that years of claiming "Litecoin does not need development" has occurred is somewhat misleading. It comes from a single tweet from a conversation between Charlie Lee in a conversation with user Darth Camel (December 2014). What Charlie actually said was "LTC doesn't need development right now. Adding gimmicks does not help a currency succeed. Liquidity, merchants and users does".

The conversation was between an individual looking looking for more positive news for litecoin such as being added to coinbase. Charlie Lee goes on encouraging him to find ways to contribute to litecoin rather than just expecting others to make it happen.

This statement has been used for years, taken out of context and is just another example of how special interests will use a simple sentence to mislead those interested in cryptocurrency but unwilling to do any research. The fact is Charlie never said "Litecoin does not need development" and was primarily trying to make a point about adoption. It still remains true that liquidity, merchants and users are needed for adoption in general (of any coin).

Here's a link complete with a inaccurate title to bait the reader (what a surprise from cryptocoinsnews.com) for those interested in the truth:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/litecoin-creator-charlie-lee-claims-litecoin-not-need-development-says-adding-gimmicks-not-help-currency-succeed/

I saw that tweet and I've used it number of times, but I don't remember if it was back in 2014. Charlie Lee is indeed implying about adoption and that is what is the most important part of the digital currency's evolution. The fact that several things are proposed for the LTC development doesn't mean that Lee is giving up on his words, it's in fact the opposite.

In the mean time, retweet! Even Charlie Lee did. https://twitter.com/FAILCommunity/status/777822871154483200

Good coins (LTC among the greatest) must be supported, no matter if you (don't) "invest" in them and/or hold some.

EDIT: Whoever talks bad for Litecoin is a hypocrite to me.

[1714155492]

1714155492

[1714155492]

1714155492

[1714155492]

1714155492

[Ayers]

lol at the beginning when they say that litecoin is superior to bitcoin, because of faster confirmation time, which mean more orphan and no congestion, which mean because volume of litecoin is so small is not funny to compare it to bitcoin, really stupid

[umairsaleem011]

Time to buy LTC again!!! (FInally!)

[Spoetnik]

So far anything i heard from the LTC guys i have agreed with.
But if they are going to put an *optional* anon feature into the coin ?
I think they are making a serious mistake and it will do more harm than good.
If they are considering it i hope they reconsider and think REAL carefully about it.

For one thing they would end up looking to the public like they are pandering.
Late & a dollar short.. the public will turn it's nose up at LTC if they do ANON.
It will not "come across" as what they think it will.
It will end up being seen as pandering for attention etc.

I have said for ages that if it works then fuck off with the Road Map whining..
and GO USE THE DAMN COIN !
SO it's obvious the LTC guys "get it"
I did not know they were saying the same thing all along basically.
Adoption guys..

And adoption + ANON coins are going to be a problem.
Is this not obvious ?
So adding even optional anon features is going to hamper adoption.
This is not a step forward but a step backward in my view.

Of course it's just my opinion and they will do what ever they want.
But i hope people speak up and throw in their opinion too.

@Dinofelis
I don't think your retorts are of very good quality this time around sorry.
With no anon Bitcoin would be and is vulnerable ?
Yup.. so what ?
I am not debating Bitcoin am i ?
But there is mixing services that are used etc.. did you read my last reply when i went into that ?

I guess there is two roads you can go down.. the legit route with some level of compliance or the dark side.
You can't have it both ways people.. you can't go down both paths.

I personally will not even Google search the word "Silk Road"
So i sure as hell will not be using crap like that.. i want NOTHING to do with it all.
And i am willing to bet your average users out there not crypto-nerds will feel the same way.
..when they are told XYZ coin is used on Dark Markets for illegal activities.

We need adoption and not by *MORE* fucking criminals.. we already have enough of that demographic.
It's bad enough Bitcoin's press is always about Ransomware these days..

If you want to solidify Crypto as a a niche scene then push on guys.
Pushing ANON shit because you think Dark Market coin adoption will provide you profits is a selfish way to look at it and detrimental in the larger scheme of things.
Like buying Monero coins after hearing about them used on Dark markets hoping this will lead to a surge in buying and there for put profit in your pocket.
But on the grander scale we have more dark market activity which is just going to be viewed to the public as a negative thing thing to the entire crypto scene in general.

Sometimes profit now is not worth it guys.

You need to consider things longer term.
I would rather invest in coin not used on dark markets and wait for the legit users around the globe to join Crypto.
Rather than being a sleazy douche trying to make a quick buck off of Dark Market bullshit.

And i have said for years since 2013 it WILL NOT MATTER if it is optional.
If it is an option it will be perceived and treated as an anon coin regardless.

All i can do is throw in my 2 cents.
What i said above i literally have been repeating exactly word for word since 2013.
And so far my predictions have been coming true !

[TheMage]

Some of the responses in this thread are very interesting, and what I find the most interesting is the philosophy that some folks have and how different it is from those who work on Litecoin (whether it be the developers or the Litecoin Association).

There is no desperation, there is no flavor of the month, no gimmick, and certainly no pumping. If any of this were happening, then it would have happened 2 years ago when that article came out that shyliar linked. We actively look for opportunities to make the Litecoin and crypto experience better because we honestly believe in the work that we do. Unlike the vast majority of cryptos out there, Litecoin isnt here to make people rich or a get rich quick scheme.

I've personally (and openly) stated that I believe in the Satoshi vision, which is to utilize cryptos as an alternate payment method to fiat. This is the goal of Litecoin, and something that I have discussed with Charlie at lengths about. Our vision is to see "USD, Bitcoin, and Litecoin accepted here". Is it a long hard road ahead of us? Hell yes! Even Bitcoin cant get away from the traders grasp and the ideology that cryptos are nothing more than penny stocks. But that doesnt mean that we just say "screw it" and throw our hands up in the air.

Right now confidential transactions are not set in stone, but merely one of many items that we are looking at in order to improve the Litecoin experience. Xinxi just happens to be very enthusiastic about this particular item, to the point where he wants to have more community interaction and thoughts from folks on the subject. And from an ecosystem perspective, I personally wouldnt be doing anyone any favors without reading the pros and cons from the community on the subject when advising the developers on how this could affect the larger Litecoin ecosystem.


Just a little more information to add to this, the Litecoin developers nor do the Litecoin Association staff are paid at all. We are all volunteers, and work on Litecoin because we all share the same mindset and sets of philosophies and ideologies (in regards to Litecoin core being more well funded). For the funds that are raised, it helps with paying for help we may need in terms of contractors, web hosting and protection, and other items such as the trademark issue we have been fighting.

Litecoin was one of the most if not the most fair launches ever in crypto currency. The Binaries were supplied weeks in advanced (at least a month if I remember correctly) so people could set up and configure on the test net, Charlie only mined the first 2 blocks for testing, and the launch date and time were picked by the community. It was so fair in fact that to this day there is a nasty rumor that Litecoin was instamined because the difficulty didnt catch up with the amount of support that Litecoin received at launch (you know, difficulty retargeting an all).

Back to the desperation part and my small tangent here, the same article that Shyliar posted also includes a small snippit from one of the many charities I helped organize. Just some proof to show that yes we do care about the community and dont do it for the greed. We feel that we must hold ourselves to higher standards to show cryptos and the world as a whole that we arent just a bunch of wolf of wallstreet wannabe's.



On a side note, spartak_t are you the one behind @failcommunity handle?

[dinofelis]

And adoption + ANON coins are going to be a problem.
Is this not obvious ?

It all depends on what "adoption" means to you.   I have the impression that you are, like so many, a crypto "investor", that is to say, someone that is gambling in a zero-sum game with the hope of getting more out of it than he put into it, which comes down to ripping off others (that's the nature of a zero sum game, and getting out more).

As such, for you, the demand for "adoption" is understandable: adoption = influx of greater fools.  You don't want them to do anything with those coins except generating demand for it, and have them pay high prices for it, so that you can "make money" at their expense.

If that is the case, then I perfectly understand why:
1) you don't want any smear in its name
2) you want it perfectly compliant so that you can legally use the money you ripped out of the pockets of others
3) you are probably even wanting to pay taxes on that money, if there are sufficient others and the gains are big enough

But this is nothing else but "greater fool theory".  People "invest" in bitcoin, because they think that "adoption" will lead to "more and greater fools".

But let us assume that bitcoin has reached maturity.  That in 2025, the bitcoin price is still $600.  Would you be happy ?  

After all, for most of the "adopters", that's what they will experience: maybe they bought bitcoin at $100 000, but 10 years later, the price of bitcoin is still $100 000.  Sooner or later, "adoption" will reach maturity, and prices will not increase any more.

So what is the advantage of having, say, 5 bitcoin, over having a bank account with $ 500 000 on it ?

(don't come in about taxes and so on, it will all be perfectly legal, known, and regulated as you like it).

What's the f*cking use of bitcoin, if it is just to hold money like a bank account, but with all the hassle and the fear of having your keys stolen ?  Why not have it on a bloody bank account ?  What's the difference ?

So adding even optional anon features is going to hamper adoption.
This is not a step forward but a step backward in my view.

We don't care about "investor" adoption, do we ?

@Dinofelis
I don't think your retorts are of very good quality this time around sorry.
With no anon Bitcoin would be and is vulnerable ?
Yup.. so what ?

It is not "vulnerable" as in "cracking", it is vulnerable in as "tax agencies may find out and your buying history may be uncovered rather easily by law enforcement".

I guess there is two roads you can go down.. the legit route with some level of compliance or the dark side.
You can't have it both ways people.. you can't go down both paths.

THERE, we agree perfectly, and my point is that crypto has NO USE in the first case, fiat is better.  Apart for the "greater fool game" of "crypto investors", which sooner or later will come to an end, when "maturity" is reached.

I personally will not even Google search the word "Silk Road"

My god.  I have trackmenot running, which searches for those evil words every minute.  At my office and at home

So i sure as hell will not be using crap like that.. i want NOTHING to do with it all.
And i am willing to bet your average users out there not crypto-nerds will feel the same way.
..when they are told XYZ coin is used on Dark Markets for illegal activities.

Then what are you doing here ?  Ripping legally off newcomers ?

[coblee]

Litecoin shitiest coin of them all.

This coin has no future. I don't expect it will be able to hold $3.8 before end of September. Big crash coming soon.

This shit coin just needs to fucking DIE already.

Hmm, maybe you should try to change your username bitcoinlitcoinbtcltc.

I've posted my thoughts on this as a reply to a reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/53lqq3/litecoin_confidential_transactions_philosophically/

If anyone has questions for me, I will try to answer them. Post it either here, on reddit, on telegram, or even twitter.

[bbc.reporter]

It is a start for Litecoin, but Litecoin is going to have to deal with its effective 4 MB blocksize limit every 10 min.

This is assuming there isn't a repeat of the ETH/ETC fiasco.

I find it odd that after several years of the claim that "Litecoin does not need development" there is now an attempt to include privacy enhancing features. What happened?

Why the change of heart?

Block size limit is an issue, but so is not having a tail emission to incentivize miners after block rewards hit 0.

I think the statement that years of claiming "Litecoin does not need development" has occurred is somewhat misleading. It comes from a single tweet from a conversation between Charlie Lee in a conversation with user Darth Camel (December 2014). What Charlie actually said was "LTC doesn't need development right now. Adding gimmicks does not help a currency succeed. Liquidity, merchants and users does".

The conversation was between an individual looking for more positive news for litecoin such as being added to coinbase. Charlie Lee goes on encouraging him to find ways to contribute to litecoin rather than just expecting others to make it happen.

This statement has been used for years, taken out of context and is just another example of how special interests will use a simple sentence to mislead those interested in cryptocurrency but unwilling to do any research. The fact is Charlie never said "Litecoin does not need development" and was primarily trying to make a point about adoption. It still remains true that liquidity, merchants and users are needed for adoption in general (of any coin).

Here's a link complete with a inaccurate title to bait the reader (what a surprise from cryptocoinsnews.com) for those interested in the truth:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/litecoin-creator-charlie-lee-claims-litecoin-not-need-development-says-adding-gimmicks-not-help-currency-succeed/

This is taken out of context and the time that happened was during a different phase in the cryptosphere. I believe during that time the cryptosphere was crazy about NXT and all the other platforms that had similar features like the ability to make your own token and have it traded in the exchange in the platform. Counterparty was also new and it had its own exchange. Then there was Dogeparty which was a flop. I speculate that there were a lot of people who felt that litecoin was going behind the times because it was not following that trend.

But the statement by Charlie Lee that said that LTC does not need more development is what he really felt at that time and it is true. Then now seeing how XMR is going forward and in front of the rest in all of altcoins and also became accepted by the darknet, who would not have a change of heart? XMR could be the nail in the coffin of LTC if it does not have those features of XMR integrated.

[spartak_t]

On a side note, spartak_t are you the one behind @failcommunity handle?

Yes. It's not a personal account (though I have one, but I'm not using it), but as for now I am the only one who controls it.

[smoothie]

It is a start for Litecoin, but Litecoin is going to have to deal with its effective 4 MB blocksize limit every 10 min.

This is assuming there isn't a repeat of the ETH/ETC fiasco.

I find it odd that after several years of the claim that "Litecoin does not need development" there is now an attempt to include privacy enhancing features. What happened?

Why the change of heart?

Block size limit is an issue, but so is not having a tail emission to incentivize miners after block rewards hit 0.

I think the statement that years of claiming "Litecoin does not need development" has occurred is somewhat misleading. It comes from a single tweet from a conversation between Charlie Lee in a conversation with user Darth Camel (December 2014). What Charlie actually said was "LTC doesn't need development right now. Adding gimmicks does not help a currency succeed. Liquidity, merchants and users does".

The conversation was between an individual looking for more positive news for litecoin such as being added to coinbase. Charlie Lee goes on encouraging him to find ways to contribute to litecoin rather than just expecting others to make it happen.

This statement has been used for years, taken out of context and is just another example of how special interests will use a simple sentence to mislead those interested in cryptocurrency but unwilling to do any research. The fact is Charlie never said "Litecoin does not need development" and was primarily trying to make a point about adoption. It still remains true that liquidity, merchants and users are needed for adoption in general (of any coin).

Here's a link complete with a inaccurate title to bait the reader (what a surprise from cryptocoinsnews.com) for those interested in the truth:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/litecoin-creator-charlie-lee-claims-litecoin-not-need-development-says-adding-gimmicks-not-help-currency-succeed/

This is taken out of context and the time that happened was during a different phase in the cryptosphere. I believe during that time the cryptosphere was crazy about NXT and all the other platforms that had similar features like the ability to make your own token and have it traded in the exchange in the platform. Counterparty was also new and it had its own exchange. Then there was Dogeparty which was a flop. I speculate that there were a lot of people who felt that litecoin was going behind the times because it was not following that trend.

But the statement by Charlie Lee that said that LTC does not need more development is what he really felt at that time and it is true. Then now seeing how XMR is going forward and in front of the rest in all of altcoins and also became accepted by the darknet, who would not have a change of heart? XMR could be the nail in the coffin of LTC if it does not have those features of XMR integrated.

It is going to be an uphill battle if LTC is trying to implement and match the privacy features that of monero.

Somehow I don't think that is the goal, based on recent statements, but it remains to be seen what is true.

[spartak_t]

It is going to be an uphill battle if LTC is trying to implement and match the privacy features that of monero.

Somehow I don't think that is the goal, based on recent statements, but it remains to be seen what is true.

Not even close. I don't think that's the idea and imho, it would be a huge mistake. I honestly believe that the anon coins would be targeted by the authorities at some point.

P.S. Don't take this like I am a XMR hater. 

[dinofelis]

Not even close. I don't think that's the idea and imho, it would be a huge mistake. I honestly believe that the anon coins would be targeted by the authorities at some point.

This sounds like "I think that strong crypto will be targeted by the authorities at a certain point, so let us all use backdoored crypto".  Or "I think that free, secure operating systems are going to be targeted by authorities at a certain point, so let us all use win10 or OsX".  Or ...

You can list many things.  If you are afraid of using your freedom, because those wanting you to be their slave will be after you, then you've already lost your freedom.  If you do not stand behind your freedom, one will not give it to you.

So, yes of course, anon coins will be targeted.  So what ?  Non-anon coins will be institutionalized, and lose their purpose.

[coblee]

This is taken out of context and the time that happened was during a different phase in the cryptosphere. I believe during that time the cryptosphere was crazy about NXT and all the other platforms that had similar features like the ability to make your own token and have it traded in the exchange in the platform. Counterparty was also new and it had its own exchange. Then there was Dogeparty which was a flop. I speculate that there were a lot of people who felt that litecoin was going behind the times because it was not following that trend.

But the statement by Charlie Lee that said that LTC does not need more development is what he really felt at that time and it is true. Then now seeing how XMR is going forward and in front of the rest in all of altcoins and also became accepted by the darknet, who would not have a change of heart? XMR could be the nail in the coffin of LTC if it does not have those features of XMR integrated.

I guess I can better tell you what I was thinking at that time. Litecoin gets all the Bitcoin developer's work practically for free. I did not think that adding the latest fad would help Litecoin much at all. Litecoin, like Bitcoin, was already by far a much better form of money than anything else. We just needed more exchanges, merchants, and user adoption. Other coins need these gimmicks to pump their value, but Litecoin did not.

That said, I've know all along that fungibility was the one feature that keeps Bitcoin/Litecoin from being perfect money. And this is something Bitcoin will solve eventually I believe. But Litecoin can help out. It's much easier to get a soft fork (or even a hard fork) pushed through for Litecoin. And with a much smaller market cap, I think it's a perfect place to test out something like confidential transactions. (Of course, Blockstream might disagree and think that Elements Alpha is a fine test network for CT.) So, I've decided that it's time for me to do something to help move us towards this goal.

It is going to be an uphill battle if LTC is trying to implement and match the privacy features that of monero.

Somehow I don't think that is the goal, based on recent statements, but it remains to be seen what is true.

Not even close. I don't think that's the idea and imho, it would be a huge mistake. I honestly believe that the anon coins would be targeted by the authorities at some point.

P.S. Don't take this like I am a XMR hater.  

We are still figuring this out. Of course, doing a hard fork is a high barrier and would require a very good reason.

What do you mean by "targeted by the authorities"? Do you think anon makes Litecoin less valuable because of this?

[jacaf01]

Time to buy LTC again!!! (FInally!)

You better do your research before you follow the herd, looking at LTC I don't thing they have good developers to make that transition because the project has been riding only on the success of BTC for very long time, unless they are hiring more developers now

[spartak_t]

Not even close. I don't think that's the idea and imho, it would be a huge mistake. I honestly believe that the anon coins would be targeted by the authorities at some point.

This sounds like "I think that strong crypto will be targeted by the authorities at a certain point, so let us all use backdoored crypto".  Or "I think that free, secure operating systems are going to be targeted by authorities at a certain point, so let us all use win10 or OsX".  Or ...

You can list many things.  If you are afraid of using your freedom, because those wanting you to be their slave will be after you, then you've already lost your freedom.  If you do not stand behind your freedom, one will not give it to you.

So, yes of course, anon coins will be targeted.  So what ?  Non-anon coins will be institutionalized, and lose their purpose.

This will never change, no matter what I think or feel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEhSk71gUCQ

What do you mean by "targeted by the authorities"? Do you think anon makes Litecoin less valuable because of this?

Your words:

I said it would be hard for Coinbase to justify adding a coin that's sole purpose is to be a currency for DNM. So for example, now that a few DNMs are adding Monero to elude government tracking, it would raise a lot of regulator's eyebrows if Coinbase added Monero to its platform.

I'm not saying that adding certain anonymity would make it less valuable. That has nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that "some people" would raise their eyebrows. I'm not living in a movie full of conspiracy theories, but in reality they can just label Litecoin as a threat of the national security of Zimbabwe and screw it all over. They are not even obliged to explain why. I personally think that anonymity would be a main weapon of the states which are fighting crypto.

P.S. I have no problems to go outside my building now and scream "power to the people", and then fight with whoever makes me remarks.  

[bbc.reporter]

@spartak_t. I am curious what you think. For fungibility's sake is it not better for LTC to have confidential transactions? Wouldn't that make each coin have more value?

[spartak_t]

@spartak_t. I am curious what you think. For fungibility's sake is it not better for LTC to have confidential transactions? Wouldn't that make each coin have more value?

It is my name so you can call me Spartak (Spartacus). What I think could not be fully explained with my poor English wording. Early on I've said that if the anonymity/confidential feature is optional, then it's fine, but this is again two-edged sword. Let's say that I represent a powerful state, which is fighting cryptocurrencies and my opinion matters. I can just say: - Litecoin gives you the chance to do crimes.

Darknet markets are named like that for a reason. No matter if you sell flowers or AK47's.

[bbc.reporter]

Yes but using litecoin for crimes will happen anyway, just look at bitcoin. The advantage of having confidential transactions in making each coin fungible and the same. Unlike bitcoin now some people fear that the coins that went thru the darknet market will have less value than the coins that did not.

For me personally I think it is overrated but those people that said that fungibility is important for the future of the coin might be right.

[spartak_t]

Yes but using litecoin for crimes will happen anyway, just look at bitcoin. The advantage of having confidential transactions in making each coin fungible and the same. Unlike bitcoin now some people fear that the coins that went thru the darknet market will have less value than the coins that did not.

For me personally I think it is overrated but those people that said that fungibility is important for the future of the coin might be right.

What is needed is cryptocurrencies to be (widely) accepted as money. A lot of people care about their privacy, but they have it (at least they think they do) while using fiat money, right? Cryptocurrencies should focus on being "better money", not a "better way to hide ourselves".

[Herbert2020]

mar my words.
"litecoin will go to the moon in the near future."

the whales have been accumulating and if anybody was left behind or was busy in other places, they have came back to litecoin again. and especially with the current news about the confidential transactions which is the new popular interest, there will be a lot of attention to litecoin and soon there will be a big rise because of all this.