Bitcoin is more energy-efficient and more secure than litecoin

[virtualmaster]

I tried litecoin and I have a litecoin wallet also so I don't have any prejudice against them.
However I think that:
1. bitcoin is more secure against 51% attacks than litecoin
2. bitcoin is more energy-efficient than litecoin
Why:
1. The 51% attack is much more probable to come from somebody who already has this power and not from somebody who will buy it for that purpose.
So this attack could be:
a. from a mining pool or some of them inside the system
In this case litecoin is more sensible because mining on a single non asic computer will bring to little hash power to mine it single so they will have more aggregation around the biggest mining pools.
b. from outside the system but from somebody who already has the mining power
In this case is definitely bitcoin the more secure because without asic it is difficult to attack the bitcoin chain. And all who have mining asics they will mine and will not wait until they  have the power to attack bitcoin.
Google's clustered computer system with a couple of million of computers is much better suited to attack a lite-coin type chain than a bitcoin type chain.
2. by the corresponding hash-power(multiplied with 1.000) and the same network security  bitcoin will need 1.000 times less energy with assic than litecoin
I find litecoin an interesting experiment but their system is wasting a lot of energy which is not good for the environment.

What do you think about ?

[Akka]

Energy Efficiency or Cost of Equipment don't matter, for no proof of work based crypto currency.

As long as it is cheaper to mine a coin than to buy it, or as long as you can sell it for more than it costs you mining it, new miners will get in until it reaches a balance and the energy consumption = worth of new created coins + tx fees.

This is just how a marked with no / very low entry barriers works.

The point remains, that with ASIC you need special equipment to attack a chain, while with GPU / CPU you can do it with regular equipment.

So I would consider "ASIC-Proof" a (very small) disadvantage.

Other than that, in matters of security and energy efficiency, there are no differences to speak of.

Edit: Wow, I think this was my first post on the Alt-Subforum 

[virtualmaster]

Energy Efficiency or Cost of Equipment don't matter, for no proof of work based crypto currency.

However both bitcoin and litecoin are proof of work based crypto-currencies so it is not a valid argument and energy efficiency have importance.

[virtualmaster]

As long as it is cheaper to mine a coin than to buy it, or as long as you can sell it for more than it costs you mining it, new miners will get in until it reaches a balance and the energy consumption = worth of new created coins + tx fees.

This is a very simplistic and and short term point of view as would be nothing important just only if you can make a profit with mining or not.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Try discussing in C3's thread about a cryptocurrency you want

[BlackBison]

In this case is definitely bitcoin the more secure because without asic it is difficult to attack the bitcoin chain. And all who have mining asics they will mine and will not wait until they  have the power to attack bitcoin.

Well not necessarily. The litecoin network is currently running at the bitcoin equivalent of 6-7 TH, which is about 1/3 of what Bitcoin was running before we had the recent asic hashrate jump. So its pretty damn strong right now.

Although litecoin is easier to attack with a cpu botnet, or google cluster etc, it is still not a likely or even logistically feasible attack imo.

As I said months ago the only significant attack vector is a huge ASIC attack on BTC, which although unlikely is significant enough to warrant taking some LTC as an insurance policy. Redundancy is always good.

Such an attack is possible as the ASICs are centralised to just 1 or 2 companies now. So they could be stolen/paid off etc. This *could* bring about tens of TH of power for a sudden attack out of nowhere.

I just don't see any other attack happening right now, and even this one is pretty unlikely..

[Akka]

As long as it is cheaper to mine a coin than to buy it, or as long as you can sell it for more than it costs you mining it, new miners will get in until it reaches a balance and the energy consumption = worth of new created coins + tx fees.

This is a very simplistic and and short term point of view as would be nothing important just only if you can make a profit with mining or not.

Making Profit is the sole reason most people mine.

And it's not simplistic. If 1000 USD woth of Litcoin would be mined daily, new miners would pour in until close to 1000 USD worth of electricity are used every day. At this point it would make no sense to start mining and people buy instead.

The exact same goes for Bitcoin.

As long as Electricity is used to mine a coin, there is no such thing as Energy Efficiency for a coin.

Of course you have to add cost of equipment to this, but besides from this it really is that simple.

Therefore this is a valid argument:

Energy Efficiency or Cost of Equipment don't matter, for no proof of work based crypto currency.

However both bitcoin and litecoin are proof of work based crypto-currencies so it is not a valid argument and energy efficiency have importance.

[bitcool]

As long as Electricity is used to mine a coin, there is no such thing as Energy Efficiency for a coin.

Of course you have to add cost of equipment to this, but besides from this it really is that simple.

+1

[Endgame]

As long as Electricity is used to mine a coin, there is no such thing as Energy Efficiency for a coin.

Of course you have to add cost of equipment to this, but besides from this it really is that simple.

That is a really good point about energy efficiency. I never thought of it that way.

[virtualmaster]

Although litecoin is easier to attack with a cpu botnet, or google cluster etc, it is still not a likely or even logistically feasible attack imo.

At least somebody is recognizing this fact.

As I said months ago the only significant attack vector is a huge ASIC attack on BTC, which although unlikely is significant enough to warrant taking some LTC as an insurance policy. Redundancy is always good.

Such an attack is possible as the ASICs are centralised to just 1 or 2 companies now. So they could be stolen/paid off etc. This *could* bring about tens of TH of power for a sudden attack out of nowhere.

I just don't see any other attack happening right now, and even this one is pretty unlikely..

A botnets or Google clusters are also very centralized and they both exists. Asics exists only inside the network so they must be produced first for an attack so they are more unlikely.

[DeathAndTaxes]

This is a very simplistic and and short term point of view as would be nothing important just only if you can make a profit with mining or not.

Also very realistic.  Cryptocurrencies don't need altruism for protection.  If people can more for a profit and do they protect the network.  You can't stop "simplistic thinking" so the system should expect it.  All proof of work systems (except those like freicoin which steal from miners) gain value from hashing power regardless of the motiviations of the miner (true believer, or cynical miner looking to make a profit).

[DeathAndTaxes]

As long as Electricity is used to mine a coin, there is no such thing as Energy Efficiency for a coin.
Of course you have to add cost of equipment to this, but besides from this it really is that simple.

Well that is where the efficiency comes in.  The hashing power is going to reach equilibrium where cost of hashing is roughly equal to the benefit however the cost of hashing is equipment plus electricity.  Lets say hypothetically today Bitcoin miners spend 20% on equipment and 80% on electricity.  In theory it would be possible to see a move towards more expensive but more efficient hardware.   In the future if there are some vendors offering equipment that results in a 30%/70% split then the energy efficiency improves.

If users have free hardware (like mining on general purpose computers which will already have a GPU for example) then they will drive hashing power up to where electricity costs ~= energy costs.  However if users need to buy hardware (potentially increasingly expensive hardware) then the electrical consumption equilibrium point will be lower.  Of course all that assumes rational actors but eventually wealth will transfer from irrational actors (those mining at greater than the cost of coins) to rational ones (those buying coins when they are less than production cost or investing in more efficient equipment).

[efx]

Although litecoin is easier to attack with a cpu botnet, or google cluster etc, it is still not a likely or even logistically feasible attack imo.

At least somebody is recognizing this fact.

As I said months ago the only significant attack vector is a huge ASIC attack on BTC, which although unlikely is significant enough to warrant taking some LTC as an insurance policy. Redundancy is always good.

Such an attack is possible as the ASICs are centralised to just 1 or 2 companies now. So they could be stolen/paid off etc. This *could* bring about tens of TH of power for a sudden attack out of nowhere.

I just don't see any other attack happening right now, and even this one is pretty unlikely..

A botnets or Google clusters are also very centralized and they both exists. Asics exists only inside the network so they must be produced first for an attack so they are more unlikely.

Entirely false. I suggest you do a little research into the US government and sha256...