What Litecoin means for Bitcoin (and crypto in general) once it's on Mt.Gox

[Vivisector999]

You are correct that a Bitcoin could be broken down into Satoshi to provide enough currency units to populate the world market's needs for currency.  But will you accept at that time that they say all your BTC will now have the equivalent value of 1 Satoshi per BTC???  Or do you expect the world economy will accept the idea of moving fully to a currency that accepts the idea a few people that were early adopters can hold 1/1000th of the world's economy to themselves.  Satoshi would become richer than a G7 country, as he supposedly owns 800,000 BTC.  It is reasons like this that Bitcoins or any other long established and limited cryptos will not take over as the default world's currency.  No one will go for that idea, no matter how nice you might think it would be.  

[amincd]

You are correct that a Bitcoin could be broken down into Satoshi to provide enough currency units to populate the world market's needs for currency. But will you accept at that time that they say all your BTC will now have the equivalent value of 1 Satoshi per BTC???  Or do you expect the world economy will accept the idea of moving fully to a currency that accepts the idea a few people that were early adopters can hold 1/1000th of the world's economy to themselves.  Satoshi would become richer than a G7 country, as he supposedly owns 800,000 BTC.  It is reasons like this that Bitcoins or any other long established and limited cryptos will not take over as the default world's currency.  No one will go for that idea, no matter how nice you might think it would be.  

If cryptocurrency takes hold, even with multiple blockchains, there will be early adopters that become extremely wealthy. People will buy into it for the same reason they buy into Apple stocks: they value personal financial gains more than they value denying early adopters wealth.

In any case, in the long run, holding a large amount of bitcoins, even in the event of massive success, will be not be as lucrative as owning large amounts of income-producing assets in the Bitcoin economy. The bitcoins will continually be circulated, and those who provide goods/services will constantly be able to replenish their store of coins, while those that do nothing but hold coins will be able to spend their wealth once.

The total market capitalization of a base currency is only a small fraction of the total wealth that exists in the world. Most wealth is not in currency. If Bitcoin becomes HUGE, I don't expect it to be worth more than a few hundred billion dollars. In that case, Satoshi would be worth something in the tens of billions of dollars. That's not any more than the founders of other tech giants like Facebook and Apple.

[acoindr]

I took issue with your claim that bitcoin is scarce because its 21 million coin supply is insufficient for a population of 7 billion.

I never said 21 million coins is insufficient for a population of 7 billion and you can't quote where I did. This is just another example of you saying something that doesn't match reality. Anyway, I'm tired of the discussion with you. Go ahead and reply with your best as I'm sure you want the last word(s).

[amincd]

I took issue with your claim that bitcoin is scarce because its 21 million coin supply is insufficient for a population of 7 billion.

I never said 21 million coins is insufficient for a population of 7 billion and you can't quote where I did. This is just another example of you saying something that doesn't match reality. Anyway, I'm tired of the discussion with you. Go ahead and reply with your best as I'm sure you want the last word(s).

You said it here:

However, I do care about a limit on coin supply. As long as that limit is measured in the millions for a global user base of 7 billion I don't have much concern.

and here:

That's true, but like I said before the total limit on globally accepted cryptocurrency I believe will be measured in the millions, which is extremely scarce.

And also here:

Yes, actually bitcoins are in fact extremely scarce when compared to billions of people potentially using them. Remove all the other alt-coins from the picture for a moment, and say there is only Bitcoin with its 21 million coin limit.

You did add this right after:

It is true you can divide each and every one of those 21 million bitcoins into fractions, but what you cannot do is come up with more total whole bitcoins.

which is correct. But your first point, that bitcoin is scarce because there are 'very few' of them compared to the population of the world, is not. It doesn't make a difference if there is only 1 bitcoin in the world economy, or 1 trillion, as long as it is divisible enough where everyone can have a share of the total supply.

[redwraith]

crazy_rabbit is continuosly promoting alternative currencies, including Bitcoin testnet coins. He strives to put his ads in the Bitcoin discussion thread, instead of the alt-coins thread, where it should really stay.

In my opinion, this behavior does no good to the cryptocurrency world. Currently, all alt-coins are just forks any guy can create in one afternoon, and just dilutes the focus on Bitcoin.

Anyway, I will personally abandon Mt Gox if this happens and I will join some other exchange.

Bye, bye!

[N12]

If Litecoin gets adoption comparable to Bitcoin, it's inevitable that they will compete.
Now let's try to imagine to scenarios:

1) Bitcoin wins. The more people accept a currency, the more people want to accept that currency as well. Bitcoin wins because of that network effect. Litecoin dies. The world moves foward with the new amazing technology, hopefully to become more free and prosperous. Bitcoin continues to appreciate by orders of magnitudes.

2) Litecoin wins. Bitcoin value crashes to 0. But so does value of Litecoin. Why? Because any sane individual sees that a cryptocurrency which was once the only cryptocurrency in the world, which, when other cryptocurrencies emerged, was called "the king of cryptocurrensyes", crashed. And litecoin is not different. Litecoin is nearly a copy of bitcoin. So, it will crash as well. One of greatest inventions of mankind will be wasted, the world will return to old and not so good fiat.

That's basically what Hal Finney said about the consequences of a competing Bitcoin-derived cryptocurrency replacing Bitcoin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10666.msg152988#msg152988

True story. Scamcoin supporters are endangering the progress of the whole effort only for their short-sighted greed.

[adpinbr]

You are correct that a Bitcoin could be broken down into Satoshi to provide enough currency units to populate the world market's needs for currency.  But will you accept at that time that they say all your BTC will now have the equivalent value of 1 Satoshi per BTC???  Or do you expect the world economy will accept the idea of moving fully to a currency that accepts the idea a few people that were early adopters can hold 1/1000th of the world's economy to themselves.  Satoshi would become richer than a G7 country, as he supposedly owns 800,000 BTC.  It is reasons like this that Bitcoins or any other long established and limited cryptos will not take over as the default world's currency.  No one will go for that idea, no matter how nice you might think it would be.  

I agree for now BTC is the way to go cause no one cares about crypto currencies. Once it starts getting accepted there may be a move for "faircoin" wher everyone gets to start mining at the same time, AFTER THEY REALIZE THEY SHOULD BE MINING

[weisoq]

I would agree with you if they were not replicable, but they are. The economics of limited supply and that of bitcoin matters only to those with bitcoins. The greater public couldn't care less whether it's called bitcoin, Acoin, Bcoin, specific hashing algorithms, protocols etc - only what purpose they serve and most significantly others' perception of their value as such. I agree that for now perception of Bitcoin as limited still prevails (I understand that's technically true) but that window is closing (and by Bitcoin I mean most Alts, I'm not criticising anything but principles).

You could very well be right, but it's also possible that Bitcoin has a network effect, that will result in it maintaining its dominant market share despite the emergence of copycats.

Perhaps although I don't think so. One of the first questions I get when people ask me about Bitcoin is something along the lines of 'can they be copied and how can we do that?' One of the next questions when they realise there are already alts is something along the lines of 'why are people buying bitcoins then when Xcoin is cheaper'. There's not a very bitcoin-positive answer to that and I'm not sure at all about any long-term network effect under these circumstances when parting with money is concerned. Bitcoin already ignores issues such as relative global purchasing power, it really shouldn't ignore basic market forces in pursuit of a network effect.

True story. Scamcoin supporters are endangering the progress of the whole effort only for their short-sighted greed.

But that's exactly what everybody else says about Bitcoin supporters (whether either point is true or not).

To get back on topic, of course Litecoin on Gox will hammer bitcoin (perception if not also price). If it's not gox it's some other exchange and if it's not ltc it's some other alt. Bitcoiners should have been killing alts from day one. But even so that would only have delayed the inevitable. Eventually somebody with bigger pockets and resources than the average bitcointalker would have come along and done it anyway.

[N12]

To get back on topic, of course Litecoin on Gox will hammer bitcoin (perception if not also price). If it's not gox it's some other exchange and if it's not ltc it's some other alt. Bitcoiners should have been killing alts from day one. But even so that would only have delayed the inevitable. Eventually somebody with bigger pockets and resources than the average bitcointalker would have come along and done it anyway.

Eventually, some entities deeply invested into Bitcoin will (collude to?) exterminate the Scamcoins via 51% attacks.

[Liquid]

Id say BTC LTC NMC

I would not leave out LTC 

[Liquid]

I agree but its a "Classic" now  

Also YAC does not have established roots like LTC does and might not ever

[BitcoinFX]

To get back on topic, of course Litecoin on Gox will hammer bitcoin (perception if not also price). If it's not gox it's some other exchange and if it's not ltc it's some other alt. Bitcoiners should have been killing alts from day one. But even so that would only have delayed the inevitable. Eventually somebody with bigger pockets and resources than the average bitcointalker would have come along and done it anyway.

Eventually, some entities deeply invested into Bitcoin will (collude to?) exterminate the Scamcoins via 51% attacks.

The alt. coin market is mostly good for Bitcoin!

Currently I'm minning Bitcoin, Litecoin and Digitalcoin 24/7. I've even mined a few BitBars, Argentum and some other alt. coins.

Proof-of-Stake coins like PPcoin should be seen as a true innovation.

A percentage of the alt. coin that I've mined in the past few weeks I've traded up and exchanged on sites like cryptsy.com for Bitcoin. These are quantities of Bitcoin that I could not of aquired by mining Bitcoin in the same period of time. Moreover, I've purchased x4 Block Erupter USB ASIC (thus far) with those very Bitcoins, increasing my own Bitcoin hash rate, thus making a contribution to the Bitcoin economy as a whole.

Alt. coins will allow others to discover, trade, aquire and buy Bitcoin and vice versa. Hardcore Bitcoin supporters should use their old GPU mining rigs and FPGA's to mine Litecoin and other alt. coins, as Bitcoin becomes dominated by ASIC's.

Yes. Some alt. coins are total garbage and will probably just phase out by themselves i.e. there is certainly no need for anyone to collude to destroy others creativity.

I'm sure Satoshi would in fact think that all these alt. coins are really great! It's not all about Bitcoin you know, it should be about supporting crypto-currencies in general. Look at the bigger picture!

[joeperry]

This debate remembers me the never ending discussion about bretton woods and those bored arguments. The title is a clue about what it will be in 50 or 100 years, crypto currencies will replace fiat currencies, and I cant Imagine a world with just one coin, as I cant imagine with a single lenguage.

Litecoin and Bitcoin will not be the end of this, are just the beginning and they are just too young to say nothing. I see Litecoin very promising but is younger than the young Bitcoin. You cant ask for more, they are just the begining and guys try to make some bucks with them, and let people decide what could be, if litecoin kills bitcoin it will be because this currencie wasnt good enough to have his place in the world economy, if bitcoin kills litecoin we can say the same.

Just enjoy the trip, folks  

[Liquid]

When 1 bitcoin = $100 

[weisoq]

To get back on topic, of course Litecoin on Gox will hammer bitcoin (perception if not also price). If it's not gox it's some other exchange and if it's not ltc it's some other alt. Bitcoiners should have been killing alts from day one. But even so that would only have delayed the inevitable. Eventually somebody with bigger pockets and resources than the average bitcointalker would have come along and done it anyway.

Eventually, some entities deeply invested into Bitcoin will (collude to?) exterminate the Scamcoins via 51% attacks.

They might, but it's too late. It was always too late because there'll only be another then another etc. Unless those entities are willing to exhaust a bottomless pit of resources in pursuit of that (and I can't see why as it makes no sense - only shooting oneself in the foot - but not unthinkable) I think it's more likely that either competition will realign many existing and future cryptos (the ones that don't go to zero) towards similar protocols/technicalities over time or those entities will instead to do the most economically rationale thing and just sell high to buy low before others do.

[m4ttanderson]

I believe that while we shouldn't focus just on one exchange (I use BTC-e & Vircurex for trading, Coinjar for buying, Bitrade for selling), we should support their efforts in adding another crypto.

I'm definitely in support of LTC inclusion with FTC as well. You gotta diversify your portfolio and build practical uses in order to have an ever evolving coin. Much like Dollars, Yen, Euros etc.

re: Vote for FTC on Mt Gox - https://support.mtgox.com/forums/20514198-Featured-Requests

[Vivisector999]

I think people are crazy not to see the benefit of alt coins.  It's all a matter of greed that some people push to have just 1 type of coin.  Sure it might not exactly have a niche market etched out yet, but that doesn't mean something won't come along.  I think everyone can agree that Bitcoin is not going to make inroads into the fast food/coffee shop market due to the speeds of transactions.  LTC probably won't even make ripples in that market.  But since the dream is to have the entire world economy to switch from fiat to crypto, then only an idiot would think that only 1 coin can do all that.  Alt coins could act like a personal wallet (Fiat you carry with you, not talking Bitcoin personal wallet) or store card (Like my re-chargeable Tim's coffee card) does now in the current economy.  Bitcoin could hold the majority of people's currency (Like a bank does now), and people could switch a few satoshi's over to the crypto of their choice when they go out to purchase groceries, or get that morning coffee.

Plus different pools of people working at getting different ways to get crypto accepted by the masses can only help crypto be accepted, which would help Bitcoin in the long run.  Or whatever crypto takes over as the dominant one.  It's quite funny to see a large group of supposedly technologically advanced people stumble on the idea that innovation is bad, and if the original product is unhinged as the top, it would mean the entire system would collapse.  I can't think of a single innovation in recent times when something was created and kept as the defacto standard, where no person/company added something to make it better.  And I think that is the reason that people deeply ingrained in Bitcoin don't like the alts.  They are to busy worrying that some innovation will eventually take out the coin they put so much money/time into.

[acoindr]

What people don't realize is all the disagreement is the exact reason I realized alt-coins like Litecoin had a role to play.

When Litecoin (and other alts) were announced I paid them little attention. I just didn't see how they provided significant value enough to be adopted by the community on par with Bitcoin. (I believe Erik Voorhees still has this opinion.)

When the disagreement over Bitcoin Foundation broke out I realized with startling clarity there could be irreconcilable opinions between people, no matter how much debate ensued. I saw this could apply to more disputes than just the foundation, and might even threaten Bitcoin (with tempers, hard forks etc.) as stakes grew and more opinions came on board. I felt there was growing risk in corralling increasingly divergent opinions under one tent, and expecting harmony. Indeed this was long before the block size issue blew up in the community. A single coin I felt invited disaster because while threats from the outside might be defensible, a diverse group unable to counter infighting (and possibly corruption) could fall from within.

That was the important feature I realized alt-coins had which Bitcoin didn't. They provided an alternative. That was the thing Bitcoin could never provide by itself. After I realized this I found other ways alt-coins strengthened cryptocurrency overall (like providing technical/economic backup, easing pressure on block chain scalability, experimentation, etc.).

While I missed the significant value of alt-coins at first, I later realized they could be indispensable for trying to gain cryptocurrency success overall.

What people against Litecoin (or Mt.Gox adding it) I think don't realize is it's probably inevitable already Litecoin will see widespread adoption. Whether or not Mt.Gox adds it doesn't change the large number of people already holding it, which is where coins get traction/value in the first place. There are 18,810,954 litecoins in people's hands now. That's slightly more than the number of bitcoins currently. Litecoin is already being exchanged and has a growing user base, just like Bitcoin.

Last, for those worried about an unending string of new coins, don't. You can't stop that happening anyway, and you may even find (later as I did) real benefit to this. The reason new coins can't easily destroy older established ones is exactly because older coins are older and established. Any coin's code can be duplicated, so coins competing on that level only are not differentiated. What can't be duplicated easily is the willingness of a large user base to use a coin. For every coin that attempts to gain this, but offers no real value, i.e. reason to be adopted, the coin's value is never any more than how quickly the features it has can be cloned (i.e. probably zero).

If you don't believe more than one coin can co-exist and be valued by the market properly (and differently) you're not paying attention. That is already the situation we have now.

[crazy_rabbit]

What people don't realize is all the disagreement is the exact reason I realized alt-coins like Litecoin had a role to play.

When Litecoin (and other alts) were announced I paid them little attention. I just didn't see how they provided significant value enough to be adopted by the community on par with Bitcoin. (I believe Erik Voorhees still has this opinion.)

When the disagreement over Bitcoin Foundation broke out I realized with startling clarity there could be irreconcilable opinions between people, no matter how much debate ensued. I saw this could apply to more disputes than just the foundation, and might even threaten Bitcoin (with tempers, hard forks etc.) as stakes grew and more opinions came on board. I felt there was growing risk in corralling increasingly divergent opinions under one tent, and expecting harmony. Indeed this was long before the block size issue blew up in the community. A single coin I felt invited disaster because while threats from the outside might be defensible, a diverse group unable to counter infighting (and possibly corruption) could fall from within.

That was the important feature I realized alt-coins had which Bitcoin didn't. They provided an alternative. That was the thing Bitcoin could never provide by itself. After I realized this I found other ways alt-coins strengthened cryptocurrency overall (like providing technical/economic backup, easing pressure on block chain scalability, experimentation, etc.).

While I missed the significant value of alt-coins at first, I later realized they could be indispensable for trying to gain cryptocurrency success overall.

What people against Litecoin (or Mt.Gox adding it) I think don't realize is it's probably inevitable already Litecoin will see widespread adoption. Whether or not Mt.Gox adds it doesn't change the large number of people already holding it, which is where coins get traction/value in the first place. There are 18,810,954 litecoins in people's hands now. That's slightly more than the number of bitcoins currently. Litecoin is already being exchanged and has a growing user base, just like Bitcoin.

Last, for those worried about an unending string of new coins, don't. You can't stop that happening anyway, and you may even find (later as I did) real benefit to this. The reason new coins can't easily destroy older established ones is exactly because older coins are older and established. Any coin's code can be duplicated, so coins competing on that level only are not differentiated. What can't be duplicated easily is the willingness of a large user base to use a coin. For every coin that attempts to gain this, but offers no real value, i.e. reason to be adopted, the coin's value is never any more than how quickly the features it has can be cloned (i.e. probably zero).

If you don't believe more than one coin can co-exist and be valued by the market properly (and differently) you're not paying attention. That is already the situation we have now.

+1

[Liquid]

Ok lets say you are right then why do newbies and crypto beginners like the idea of owning some LTC then ? Its not all about bitcoin you know

I do value your maturity and intelligence on the subject though

I can send you some LTC if you want post up your address