Litecoiners: Idea to make Litecoin importance skyrocket in Bitcoin ecosystem

[casascius]

LTC will step out on its own and stand alone, separately successful from BTC.  The purpose of Litecoin is not to prop up the failings of BTC.

And it will do this because......?

Sort of how dollar-denominated gift cards to Applebees stood up and stepped out on their own as currency, separately successful from plain old fiat cash?

[weex]

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

I like the idea that attacking one of the major cryptocurrencies means you would need to attack them all but this would only happen if Litecoin were protected by Bitcoin as well. In which case, there should be some mechanism by which all coins could depend on another of their choosing for protection against the attacks mentioned in this thread. As gmaxwell points out, it would be great if the fallback chain can be chosen during the attack.

[casascius]

Ultimately, if blocks being signed under human control is any part of the equation, that will benefit all chains with an available option to consider those signatures, directly or indirectly.

[peacefulmind]

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

I like the idea that attacking one of the major cryptocurrencies means you would need to attack them all but this would only happen if Litecoin were protected by Bitcoin as well. In which case, there should be some mechanism by which all coins could depend on another of their choosing for protection against the attacks mentioned in this thread. As gmaxwell points out, it would be great if the fallback chain can be chosen during the attack.

This is well said, and something the LTC community would be more likely to support.

There has to be a benefit to LTC from this arrangement, mutual protection would be something reasonable.

Not, hey I have a great idea, re-design Litecoin so it can be our bitch and protect all our BTC investments should they all implode, and in exchange you just increase the valeu of BTC more and reduce the value of LTC.

LTC has value in the size of its network, and the fact that it is not vulnerable in the same way to the problem BTC is.  This alone adds value.  LTC has nowhere to go but up.  The OP would not make this thread unless he knew this deep down in his heart.

[cdog]

You neglect the part of the scheme above that's moronic because you spent tens of millions of dollars to attack a chain with less than that much immediate liquidity on any exchange.  If you were to spend tens of millions of dollars making lots of ASICs, why not just mine with them like everyone who has made ASICs so far is doing?

If you attack it because you're a state actor who wants to get people to use your fiat money instead of leaving it for cryptocurrency, the liquidity on the exchange is irrelevant.

The only real threat to cryptocurrencies on the scale of BTC is a state actor - or several state actors acting in unison.

Like if the US, the EU, China, and Russia all decided BTC was destabilizing their fiat, they could easily 51% the network - tomorrow.

The NSA alone certainly has enough processing power today even without ASICs:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

If ASICs were needed, spending $1B or $10B to secure trillions of USD would be trivially cost effective to a state actor.

That would be years or decades from now, but its a real threat and one that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

I like the ideas presented in theory but my technical understanding of them is a bit limited to offer valuable feedback on specifics. 

[tgsrge]

The only real threat to cryptocurrencies on the scale of BTC is a state actor - or several state actors acting in unison.

if we start talking state actors then unless we're taking about pacific ocean island nations, or some of africa and a very few others you hardly need more than 1. in fact for most of the countries out there, except for the "lose face" aspect of it, it would take little to no effort (in terms of a country) to do it. i would actually hazard that most subnational entities could easily do it if it's in their interest as well. In fact, i could actually see a national governments "outsourcing" it to subnational entities just because that way if it came out it was a state actor, they lose next to no face at all, as well as being able to go "sorry, nothing i can do for you bro, they have their autonomy"

[peacefulmind]

The only real threat to cryptocurrencies on the scale of BTC is a state actor - or several state actors acting in unison.

if we start talking state actors then unless we're taking about pacific ocean island nations, or some of africa and a very few others you hardly need more than 1. in fact for most of the countries out there, except for the "lose face" aspect of it, it would take little to no effort (in terms of a country) to do it. i would actually hazard that most subnational entities could easily do it if it's in their interest as well. In fact, i could actually see a national governments "outsourcing" it to subnational entities just because that way if it came out it was a state actor, they lose next to no face at all, as well as being able to go "sorry, nothing i can do for you bro, they have their autonomy"

It is an issue.  Can you see the same type of effort that was put behind Stux being put to work against BTC's SHA256 with 22nm premium ASICs.  All 50,000 ASICs lighting up the network at once?

LTC and scrypt at least make this type of thing quite a bit harder and much more expensive, but not impossible.

[No_2]

[...] 2. Forks shouldn't matter as this information is purely informational for the benefit of bitcoin... or at least, I don't understand how a fork could cause a problem. [...]

I know this is still early days but what if the bitcoin and litecoin chains both forked around the same time? Hypothetically could you end up with two sets of orphaned data on different chains; where the litecoin chain preferred by married miners that is logging the bitcoin chain that is not being attacked itself becomes an orphan chain.

Could this be a form of attack against this proposed married mining redundancy?

If this a genuine problem could it be fixed by the bitcoin chain reciprocally logging the litecoin chain. (This seems very over engineered).

[alex_fun]

A few people seem to be getting thrown by the mistaken belief that Litecoin's SCRYPT is ASIC incompatible— it's true scrypt itself was designed to flatten the playing field between specialized hardware an general purpose hardware by being memory-hard— but because litecoin uses only 128k (instead of the 8mb - 40mb discussed in the scrypt paper)  it's not really all that memory hard, I wouldn't be surprised to see LTC ASICs with _more_ efficiency gain simply because LTC-scrypt runs fairly poorly on GPUs

Lol I was thinking its using at least 1.2 mb If parameter is changed to say 12 mb how would then efficiency cpu v gpu compare? I think gpu got only so much ram onboard and its more costly than pc ram

As to OP idea.  Imo if btc foundation wants it use bytecoin or launch something to that purpose. Also even if technological solution is found to make any crypto impenetrable to 51% attack since its open source it would be implemented across the specter.

The thing about creating something for btc it now got unelected btc foundation. It said Official site offering documentation, forums and the open source client software which permits to send and receive bitcoins. Then http://bitcoin.org/en/foundation Bitcoin Foundation standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide.

Surely the likes of Forbes interests there can finance extra protection grids by themselves?

[efx]

LTC will step out on its own and stand alone, separately successful from BTC.  The purpose of Litecoin is not to prop up the failings of BTC.

And it will do this because......?

Sort of how dollar-denominated gift cards to Applebees stood up and stepped out on their own as currency, separately successful from plain old fiat cash?

Perhaps for some of the very reasons you have mentioned (not the Aapplebee's ad absurdum), among a few others some like to forget. Otherwise, why would you suggest this? I'm glad to see someone heavily invested in bitcoin understanding that sha256 isn't necessarily the best idea when the main vulnerability is reliant on hardware.  
That said, I think the idea has merit. I also think it is a long way from implemented and may ultimately detract from independent development.  

I'll be interested to see where this goes.

[casascius]

I think I can boil my core argument down into a few basic premises (evolved a bit with this discussion):

1. The whole point of Litecoin as it currently stands, is to bet on Bitcoin weakness but presumed Litecoin strength: either on the perceived or probable outcome that one day SHA256 won't be good enough to keep securing Bitcoin, but that scrypt and its current parameters somehow will withstand whatever befalls SHA256.

2. If both SHA256 and scrypt will survive 51% attacks, then Litecoin is pointless, because it's just a Bitcoin clone with equal durability.

3. If both SHA256 and scrypt will succumb to similar 51% attacks (scrypt simply making the attack more expensive), then Litecoin is pointless, also equal or similar in durability to Bitcoin, because it offers no innovation nor protection not already offered in Bitcoin, beyond a marginally higher attack cost.  If Bitcoin users flock to Litecoin, it will simply be attacked second.  Its superiority will be nothing but illusory: identical to the premise that Macs are inherently "more secure" than Windows PC's for some pretend reason other than the fact that, for the sheer number of them out there, Windows PC's have historically been a juicier target for attacks.

4. If Litecoin is pointless for these reasons, then there's no offense intended:  I'm proposing a change to Litecoin that would make it valued and respected by those primarily interested in Bitcoin.  (This is not being Bitcoin's "bitch", this is exchanging value for value.  Pretending that Litecoin is so valuable today as to be too good for Bitcoin would be like Britney Spears as a child thumbing her nose at the Disney deal that brought her to fame with the notion that she's already too priceless to be associated with Mickey Mouse.)

5. Litecoin is at a stage where it is small enough to be able to afford to experiment with adding features that allow users to manually influence chain reorganizations, but big enough where those experiments could get some real world traction versus being a one-man basement experiment.  There is nothing wrong with being an experiment, Bitcoin itself is rightfully labeled an experiment when compared with the size of the world containing it.  That said, Bitcoin is too big and its objectives already entrenched to make a valuable feature such as manual reorg control a nonstarter with Bitcoin, but the idea of having the user-selectable option in Bitcoin to subscribe to external block validation intelligence remains plausible.  Litecoin can be that intelligence and add value by exploiting now not one, but two inflexibilities of Bitcoin as currently implemented.

[MAD_MAD]

Excuse me if I understand something wrong... I'm a girl who dabbles in Java, and some of it might be over my head, but if this were to be implemented, a "hard 51" would go like this:

1) attacker uses Superior ASICs to mine a private BTC chain forked from some point long since past (probably so as to make a double-spend)

2) attacker publishes chain

3) an unspecified mechanism detects that there is, well, a so-called "malicious reorg", and BTC enters "hide yo coins, hide yo wife mode" and starts relying on backup data embedded in Litecoin's chain

It seems to me that

a) it would be exceedingly hard to properly develop detection algorithms for "malicious reorg" detector

b) if you succeed at a) you don't need no litecoin, you just keep around the blocks being reorged away until you are convinced that reorg was "not malicious".

c) you can, of course, just halt everything and have community "heavy hitters" decide in IRC which part of the reorg was "good" instead of doing it with "and then a miracle occurs" automagical "malicious reorg" detector, but as long as you don't discard the blocks involved (which does not require litecoin) you don't really need litecoin in this process.



So, TLDR:
I do see theoretical benefit to this general line of thinking (the "let's detect bad reorgs" line of thinking

I doubt that "malicious" reorg detector that would activate a "hide yo coins" mode when a real attack occurs is attainable

I could see a "dumb" detector being used to facilitate a "consensus intervention" on part of humans who have nontrivial power over the network (pool ops and devs).

I do not quite see why you need litecoin in any such scheme, beyond "let's give this altcoin some semblance of purpose"

[EtherDais]

I think I can boil my core argument down into a few basic premises (evolved a bit with this discussion):

1. The whole point of Litecoin as it currently stands, is to bet on Bitcoin weakness but presumed Litecoin strength: either on the perceived or probable outcome that one day SHA256 won't be good enough to keep securing Bitcoin, but that scrypt and its current parameters somehow will withstand whatever befalls SHA256.

I think it's merit need not be so "us vs them".  If what we're really interested in is a secure cryptocurrency why not develop several in tandem so that all of the eggs aren't in one basket?    As bitcoin deals with scaling up, it might be served by having other sister currencies for exactly the other reasons you list, Mike.  More of a crypto-economy with several elements which might each contribute to a larger stability. 

[tacotime]

a) it would be exceedingly hard to properly develop detection algorithms for "malicious reorg" detector

Reorg shows up in the debug output immediately in the client

It's absurdly easy to detect (just look for a chain that's been reliably mined for 6 blocks/1 h and then at 1 h the 7 block fork is detected --> report this to user via pop up)

The likelihood of two totally different chains size max of 6 MB (6 blocks) existing on the network at the same time and both being reported to a vast number of different nodes with neither group of nodes interacting is really, really unlikely

[Brunic]

I do not quite see why you need litecoin in any such scheme, beyond "let's give this altcoin some semblance of purpose"

It's not about technical prowess, it's about the network effect. The current "forced" emigration of GPU-miners from Bitcoin to Litecoin is currently distributing this currency into more pockets. Litecoin is developing simply because more people own Litecoins. People don't really care which currency is better, as long as you use it for economic purposes, it's good enough.

The total power of network hash rate is evidently important, the higher the better. But the distribution of this hash rate is also important. 100 people with 1% of the network is better than 10 people with 10% each. If Bitcoin can, in a indirect way, keep the GPU-miners around, it helps this distribution of hash rate. GPU-miners are going to flock to Litecoin anyway, and I think that Bitcoin need to keep them around. Being able to mine the BTC back-up is a pretty nice deal for BTC.

[casascius]

It seems to me that

a) it would be exceedingly hard to properly develop detection algorithms for "malicious reorg" detector

b) if you succeed at a) you don't need no litecoin, you just keep around the blocks being reorged away until you are convinced that reorg was "not malicious".

c) you can, of course, just halt everything and have community "heavy hitters" decide in IRC which part of the reorg was "good" instead of doing it with "and then a miracle occurs" automagical "malicious reorg" detector, but as long as you don't discard the blocks involved (which does not require litecoin) you don't really need litecoin in this process.

Part C is where the process would break down and where litecoin would shine.  In March, the "heavy hitters" in IRC had the benefit of being able to reliably contact and influence the majority of the hash power in a short amount of time and persuade them to implement the desired solution, and they had the benefit of a ready-made solution (a version to roll back to) so that nobody needed to do anything objectionable.  Without both of those, the devs in IRC would have had far less power than they appeared to enjoy.

If a core feature of Litecoin were that mining nodes can accept operator(user) influence, those mining Litecoins get a decentralized pulpit from which to announce their collective opinion as to which fork of the Bitcoin chain is correct.  Even in the absence of that, Litecoin can implement automated validation rules with respect to the Bitcoin chain that would be too cumbersome for Bitcoin to adopt... example, Litecoin can be programmed to automatically refuse to endorse large Bitcoin reorgs without gaining explicit operator consent, which for a well-connected Litecoin node is typically a good policy.

Bitcoin community has the option to adopt, or not adopt, the Litecoin consensus, just in case it's wrong (default is to not adopt).  By doing this, it leaves Bitcoin with a semi-automated oracle to suggest a singular, neutral, consensus-based "Plan B" recommendation for future Bitcoin fork situations.  For example, on March 12, the chain reorg that was deliberately orchestrated was desirable... the Litecoin community would endorse the target branch through operator UI, and in the event Litecoin block chain failed to gain consensus favoring the branch we were trying to accept, Bitcoin miners would react by selecting "do not listen to Litecoin" as input.

[CoinHoarder]

Sorry to be rude, but I really can't stand the way old school bitcoiners act and talk about Litecoin.

This is what your OP sounds like to me: Litecoiners... protect my big stash of Bitcoins, after securing my nest egg, then in return I will make a lot of money by selling physical Litecoins to you guys.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good idea. I am somewhere in the middle of the two extremes:
Litecoiners/Bitcoiners: That's a wonderful idea!
Litecoiners: We don't need Bitcoin, nor are we going to be Bitcoin's subservient guard dog, let the ship sink!

Old school bitcoiners seem to just not get the value and use that LTC can have in the future. You blindly ignore the good things about Litecoin that so many people already see (which is why it's up to 2.30 from .07 months ago.) I'll spare you the time of listing off some of the good traits of Litecoin because I know you know them all already, you are just blinded by your big ole pile of Bitcoins.

IMHO Litecoin is doing just fine without this and it will continue to do just fine without this. Bitcoin needs this more than Litecoin needs this. If you can't see the usefulness in Litecoin at this point in its development, then just get to steppin'... we don't need you.

/rant

[MAD_MAD]

IMHO Litecoin is doing just fine without this and it will continue to do just fine without this. Bitcoin needs this more than Litecoin needs this. If you can't see the usefulness in Litecoin at this point in its development, then just get to steppin'... we don't need you.  

 

a) it would be exceedingly hard to properly develop detection algorithms for "malicious reorg" detector

Reorg shows up in the debug output immediately in the client

It's absurdly easy to detect (just look for a chain that's been reliably mined for 6 blocks/1 h and then at 1 h the 7 block fork is detected --> report this to user via pop up)

The likelihood of two totally different chains size max of 6 MB (6 blocks) existing on the network at the same time and both being reported to a vast number of different nodes with neither group of nodes interacting is really, really unlikely

I am aware of those facts.

However, I believe you missed the part where I explicitly stated the qualifier "malicious".

Detecting a reorg is trivial. Determining whether it is an okay reorg or a "bad" reorg does not seem so.

Part C is where the process would break down and where litecoin would shine.  In March, the "heavy hitters" in IRC had the benefit of being able to reliably contact and influence the majority of the hash power in a short amount of time and persuade them to implement the desired solution, and they had the benefit of a ready-made solution (a version to roll back to) so that nobody needed to do anything objectionable.  Without both of those, the devs in IRC would have had far less power than they appeared to enjoy.

If a core feature of Litecoin were that mining nodes can accept operator(user) influence, those mining Litecoins get a decentralized pulpit from which to announce their collective opinion as to which fork of the Bitcoin chain is correct.  Even in the absence of that, Litecoin can implement automated validation rules with respect to the Bitcoin chain that would be too cumbersome for Bitcoin to adopt... example, Litecoin can be programmed to automatically refuse to endorse large Bitcoin reorgs without gaining explicit operator consent, which for a well-connected Litecoin node is typically a good policy.

I don't see why Litecoin is required here.

I mean, I realize that in this scenario, it is, essentially, a large backup tape.

But what exactly prevents BTC from, just, you know, keeping the reorged-away blocks for a little while longer and pleading the node operator to investigate "suspect" reorg when it occurs ?
Both solutions provide, essentially, the same functionality - block material is kept around for a while longer, so that human-op can decide which side of a fork he likes the best. But one requires mutual inter-operation between two cryptocurrency nets, while the other does not.

I, so far, fail to see the advantages to the "inter-operation" scenario beyond "let's give litecoin a sense of purpose" and "it would be a shame if GPU miners starve".

[bitcoiners]

LTC will step out on its own and stand alone, separately successful from BTC.  The purpose of Litecoin is not to prop up the failings of BTC.

Sort of how dollar-denominated gift cards to Applebees stood up and stepped out on their own as currency, separately successful from plain old fiat cash?

Lol, nice try but Gox has already confirmed LTC is going to their exchange.  Once this happens ltc will have plenty of publicity. 

It seems your op thread only would benefit BTC.  Unless BTC does this too as a mutual partnership with LTC, my vote is no to LTC being BTC's bitch.

I don't care if you make physical litecoins or not.  Someone sooner or later will.  Sorry you choose to ignore and lose an entire market.  But that's your choice.

Cheers.

[meanig]

Sorry to be rude, but I really can't stand the way old school bitcoiners act and talk about Litecoin.

This is what your OP sounds like to me: Litecoiners... protect my big stash of Bitcoins, after securing my nest egg, then in return I will make a lot of money in return by selling physical Litecoins to you guys.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good idea. I am somewhere in the middle of the two extremes:
Litecoiners/Bitcoiners: That's a wonderful idea!
Litecoiners: We don't need Bitcoin, nor are we going to be Bitcoin's subservient guard dog, let the ship sink!

Old school bitcoiners seem to just not get the value and use that LTC can have in the future. You blindly ignore the traits Litecoin has that so many people already see (which is why it's up to 2.30 from .07 months ago.) I'll spare you the time of listing off some of the good traits of Litecoin because I know you know them all already, you are just blinded by your big ole pile of Bitcoins.

IMHO Litecoin is doing just fine without this and it will continue to do just fine without this. Bitcoin needs this more than Litecoin needs this. If you can't see the usefulness in Litecoin at this point in its development, then just get to steppin'... we don't need you.

/rant

What development 

Back on topic I think it would be beneficial to both Bitcoin and Litecoin.