Why is litecoin hyped so much when it doesn't add any value over bitcoin?

[r3wt]

Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?

[DeathAndTaxes]

You made the claim and now are sticking with $10B NRE and $50,000 chips so don't ask me to prove a negative and certainly not for something that foolishly dumb.  Show that a LTC ASIC would cost $10B to design (more than the entire cost of Intel new foundry) and $50,000 per chip.  That is what the words "5 orders of magnitude" means.

[webcoinx]

well...

consider this:

mining litecoin IS VERY EASY...

anyone who can build a rig can start mining RIGHT AWAY...

VERSUS

MINING WITH BITCOIN...

Well yeah it is true you can mine bitcoin with rigs... but with how much? you cannot compete with ASICS vs simple rigs...

plus you have to wait a decade to get your ASICs

[weav]

You made the claim and now are sticking with $10B NRE and $50,000 chips so don't ask me to prove a negative and certainly not for something that foolishly dumb.  Show that a LTC ASIC would cost $10B to design (more than the entire cost of Intel new foundry) and $50,000 per chip.  That is what the words "5 orders of magnitude" means.

Proving the negative means showing it (an equally efficient ASIC) currently cannot be done for less, exactly what you are asking me for when all you have to do is the opposite: provide just one single theoretical design that contradicts my statement.

[stdset]

implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system?

Changing hashing function is very simple. It is literally several lines of code.

[Vivisector999]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.0

Here is 1 good reason why Litecoin is needed.  Bitcoin already admits it is not a preferential coin for small transactions.  If Bitcoin ever did become the million dollar coin everyone would like it to become, your morning coffee purchase would not be able to transferred due to it being dust.  LOL at people who figure Bitcoins can be down to the satoshi level.  If/when the bitcoin network gets even busier, they will have to knock the dust down to an even larger factor.

Another reason Litecoin might be hyped is because it's not Bitcoin.  That can be a huge bonus right now while the US Gov't seems to have the Bitcoin network as it's main target.

If Bitcoin was worth a $1M then the dust threshold would be 1 satoshi (or roughly 1 US cent).  The dust threshold is a function of the min fee miners accept.  If miners are willing to accept transactions paying a 2 satoshi fee or less then the dust threshold would be 1 satoshi.

The min fee for low priority transactions is actually higher (in terms of purchasing power) on LTC network.

BTC min fee 0.00001 BTC = ~$0.01 USD
LTC min fee 0.1 LTC = ~$0.26 USD

Actually you're behind a bit.  LTC min fee dropped a week or so ago to 0.02 LTC still not as low as Bitcoin, but a notable difference from 0.1 LTC.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?

Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?

As stdest pointed out you simply need to replace a few functions.  Now I don't think there is much value in doing that (as I have indicated about LTC) however if one were designing a novel new cryptocurrency it would not necessarily need to use the cryptographic primitives that Bitcoin uses:
proof of work: SHA-256
public keys: ECDSA
addresses (hash of public key): RIPEMD-160 & SHA-256

As for GOST there is no technical reason it could be used.  I am wary of using algorithms without extensive peer review.  In cryptography you are essentially trying to prove a negative.  Prove that this algorithm can't be broken.  Well you can prove it CAN be broken but you can never prove it can't be.  The closest thing we have is peer review and analsysis.  If a tens of thousands of experts all over the world, working for years can't break your algorithm the likelihood that it can be broken in the future is lower (but never zero).

Not sure if it was a typo but public keys are not hashes.  Public keys require public key cryptography like ECC OR RSA which uses mathematical properties which allows one to verify publicly but only create privately.  Bitcoin (and clone) addresses are the HASH of the public key.  There is no technical reason GOST couldn't be used there.

Private key =  random (or deterministic) x bit number for ECC (other algorithms may differ but generally the private key is a secret and random number, RSA for example uses a pair of random prime integers to create the private key)
Public key = calculated from private key using a public key cryptographic system (RSA, ECC, etc)
Public Address = hash & checksum of the public key

[DeathAndTaxes]

Actually you're behind a bit.  LTC min fee dropped a week or so ago to 0.02 LTC still not as low as Bitcoin, but a notable difference from 0.1 LTC.

Fixed.

[weav]

Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?

Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?

As stdest pointed out you simply need to replace a few functions.  Now I don't think there is much value in doing that (as I have indicated about LTC) however if one were designing a novel new cryptocurrency it would not necessarily need to use the cryptographic primitives that Bitcoin uses:
proof of work: SHA-256
public keys: ECDSA
addresses (hash of public key): RIPEMD-160 & SHA-256

As for GOST there is no technical reason it could be used.  I am wary of using algorithms without extensive peer review.  In cryptography you are essentially trying to prove a negative.  Prove that this algorithm can't be broken.  Well you can prove it CAN be broken but you can never prove it can't be.  The closest thing we have is peer review and analsysis.  If a tens of thousands of experts all over the world, working for years can't break your algorithm the likelihood that it can be broken in the future is lower (but never zero).

Not sure if it was a typo but public keys are not hashes.  Public keys require public key cryptography like ECC OR RSA which uses mathematical properties which allows one to verify publicly but only create privately.  Bitcoin (and clone) addresses are the HASH of the public key.  There is no technical reason GOST couldn't be used there.

Private key =  random (or deterministic) x bit number for ECC (other algorithms may differ but generally the private key is a secret and random number, RSA for example uses a pair of random prime integers to create the private key)
Public key = calculated from private key using a public key cryptographic system (RSA, ECC, etc)
Public Address = hash & checksum of the public key

Generally you cannot derive the public key from the private key in RSA

[r3wt]

Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?

Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?

As stdest pointed out you simply need to replace a few functions.  Now I don't think there is much value in doing that (as I have indicated about LTC) however if one were designing a novel new cryptocurrency it would not necessarily need to use the cryptographic primitives that Bitcoin uses:
proof of work: SHA-256
public keys: ECDSA
addresses (hash of public key): RIPEMD-160 & SHA-256

As for GOST there is no technical reason it could be used.  I am wary of using algorithms without extensive peer review.  In cryptography you are essentially trying to prove a negative.  Prove that this algorithm can't be broken.  Well you can prove it CAN be broken but you can never prove it can't be.  The closest thing we have is peer review and analsysis.  If a tens of thousands of experts all over the world, working for years can't break your algorithm the likelihood that it can be broken in the future is lower (but never zero).

Not sure if it was a typo but public keys are not hashes.  Public keys require public key cryptography like ECC OR RSA which uses mathematical properties which allows one to verify publicly but only create privately.  Bitcoin (and clone) addresses are the HASH of the public key.  There is no technical reason GOST couldn't be used there.

Private key =  random (or deterministic) x bit number
Public key = calculated from private key using a public key cryptographic system (RSA, ECC, etc)
Public Address = hash & checksum of the public key

i aprpreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. i actually am not that well versed in hashing functions or in the technical aspects of bitcoin. i'm just a curious person and i'm pondering the feasability of creating a cpu only coin using a different hash algo.

[webcoinx]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.0

Here is 1 good reason why Litecoin is needed.  Bitcoin already admits it is not a preferential coin for small transactions.  If Bitcoin ever did become the million dollar coin everyone would like it to become, your morning coffee purchase would not be able to transferred due to it being dust.  LOL at people who figure Bitcoins can be down to the satoshi level.  If/when the bitcoin network gets even busier, they will have to knock the dust down to an even larger factor.

Another reason Litecoin might be hyped is because it's not Bitcoin.  That can be a huge bonus right now while the US Gov't seems to have the Bitcoin network as it's main target.

If Bitcoin was worth a $1M then the dust threshold would be 1 satoshi (or roughly 1 US cent).  The dust threshold is a function of the min fee miners accept.  If miners are willing to accept transactions paying a 2 satoshi fee or less then the dust threshold would be 1 satoshi.

The min fee for low priority transactions is actually higher (in terms of purchasing power) on LTC network.

BTC min fee 0.00001 BTC = ~$0.01 USD
LTC min fee 0.1 LTC = ~$0.26 USD

Actually you're behind a bit.  LTC min fee dropped a week or so ago to 0.02 LTC still not as low as Bitcoin, but a notable difference from 0.1 LTC.

I think the fee has been lowered already

[Buffer Overflow]

well...

consider this:

mining litecoin IS VERY EASY...

anyone who can build a rig can start mining RIGHT AWAY...

VERSUS

MINING WITH BITCOIN...

Well yeah it is true you can mine bitcoin with rigs... but with how much? you cannot compete with ASICS vs simple rigs...

plus you have to wait a decade to get your ASICs

Till the diff shoots up. Then what?

[foggyb]

Vested interest.

Agreed.

The same is somewhat true for bitcoin, but of course if we decided not to assign monetary value to our assets, bitcoin (and all money) would be quite unnecessary. The fact that we do assign arbitrary value to things is part of what makes money (and especially bitcoin) work. So its tiresome to see people whinging about individuals with 50,000 btc, as if that's proof that bitcoin is a failure. On the contrary, large holders is a sign that bitcoin is healthy and does work as intended. As extremes are not good, I, no less than any froth-at-mouth litecoin advocate, don't like to see excessive concentrated wealth. But its not the end of the world.

[AsicBite]

In my understanding , ASIC will be broadly available till the end of a year, people can sell GPUs and switch to ASICs.
Other thing about ASICs is that the race just begun as ie 55nm ASIC are already produces and are much more powerful then BFL/AVALON chips, so people trowed their money on BFLs AVALONs and are stuck as pre-orders are not shipping (BFL), batch 3 of avalons are not on due and they are accepting refunds.., people not able to pre-order/buy those have a chance to skip first era of ASICs and jump straight to second era ...
LTC I dont see any benefits over BTC.
My main concern is not difficulty / hashing power, but central point of failure on both of them.
If US Gov can shutdown Bitcoin Foundation , who is going to continue dev and support of BTC (Single point of failure ) this applies to LTC and others.
You can argue that they can be relocated to some other country, but w/o US non of them will survive

 

[erk]

Litecoin is different from bitcoin in following ways, however none of them is particularly useful and on the contrary are only less worthy.

84 million vs 21 millions: since bitcoin is divisible upto atleast 9 decimals and also micro BTC can be used for dealing with low amounts

faster blocks 2.5 minutes vs 10 minutes average: 6 confirmations of bitcoin are not equivalent of 6 confirmations of litecoin, so litecoin payments are usually confirmed after many more confirmations. It also wastes mining power because in litecoin, most of the time miners may start work with non-best blocks.

scrypt vs sha-256: since scrypt can be relatively efficiently run on CPU/GPU which means botnets can easily control a lot of hashing power. Also, scrypt is relatively less analyzed and used than sha-256, so it may not be more secure tha sha-256.

Technically, bitcoin does what litecoin in an equal or better way. Also, bitcoin testnet can be used to experiment with new features.

Why do we need litecoin that actually has monetary value?(around 2.7USD per LTC now) Is it just promoted by a group of people who missed the bitcoin get-rich boat?

Bitcoin is novel concept and early adopters rightly earn their rewards for the risk they have taken.

Each one of those features differences you mention is significant,  you just don't get it that's all. The botnet point is wrong, it takes a lot of GPU tuning to mine scrypt, CPUs are useless, it's much easier to mine Bitcoin with a botnet. The BTC 10min block time is terrible.

[Buffer Overflow]

The BTC 10min block time is terrible.

Why is having a low block orphan rate terrible?

[fenican]

do i have to say this in every fucking thread? without litecoin and other altcoins, bitcoin mining would cease to be profitable. alt coins are necessary evils because they spread the hashing power out accross multiple networks, allowing everyone to profit in some way shape or form. without litecoin and altcoins. you could multiply the difficlut by 5 and decrease your profit by 50 percent. those are just guestimates of course.

No longer true in the ASICS era.  The BTC network is approaching 20 TH.  All the scrypt coin hash rates combined, if redirected to BTC, would only be about 2 TH.

With respect to BTC mining, GPU's have become irrelevant

[erk]

The BTC 10min block time is terrible.

Why is having a low block orphan rate terrible?

Strawman question.

LTC has an incredibly low orphan and stale rate. Basically every coin with a block rate over 45sec has a low stale rate.

[tacotime]

The biggest and really significant weakness of BTC is SHA-256, that is ASICs (which are a very genuine threat feasible for any dedicated attacker, getting a design and building a semiconductor fabrication plant can be had for a few $M). All renowned cryptographers agree that scrypt is far superior.

It is fairly easy to make a scrypt ASIC the only factor is cost.  However the scrypt used in LTC (and clones) was modified to make it about 10,000 less memory hard then the recommended default value.  LTC scrypt uses about 32KB of memory, a token amount in ASIC design.  LTC likely will never become popular enough to warrant the kind of investment but if it does ASIC builders will move to that chain as well.

Your last line is a false statement.  Please provide this extensive list of renowned cryptographers who believe scrypt is far superior.  Scrypt has been far less extensively studied than SHA and thus has a higher risk of a cryptographic flaw.  Of course SHA could also be flawed but other than maybe MD5 or AES there aren't many algorithms with more peer review.   Extensive and long peer review is mandatory to ensure cryptographic strength.

The first paper on scrypt was published less than 5 years ago and that is a tiny amount of time in the field of cryptography.  Also LTC (and clones) use a modified version of scrypt which is significantly less "memory hard" by a couple orders of magnitude.  The LTC developers are not world renowned cryptographers, there has been no extensive peer review of the effect of these modifications.  There has (AFAIK) been a single academic paper on the potential risks.

Simple version:  In cryptography tried and true is superior to new and flashy.  In time scrypt "may" become the defacto standard for key derivitive functions but that day isn't today.

No, with N=1024, r=1, p=1, you end up with a 128 KB scratch pad.  You can reduce this logarithmically by a factor of two by using the lookup_gap method of only the fly scratchpad reconstruction, but you also increase the computational effort exponentially by factors of two -- hence why scrypt is said to have time-memory trade-off (TMTO).

I trust Colin Percival's math on this one, and if you read the paper there are no obvious attack vectors beyond the already discovered TMTO.  By using a smaller value of N you should not compromise the security of the ROMix/sCrypt algorithms, at least not in theory.  Security geniuses like Solar Designer have been hammering away at sCrypt for a while and haven't discovered much else that can really be done with it.

TMTO does show that ASICs will have some advantage in power consumption and speed, but good luck achieving a 50 fold increase in speed while reducing power consumption 100 fold like we've seen with Bitcoin.

Litecoin will be here to stay for this reason alone, and there are no shortage of people willing to send thousands of dollars to the devs to keep the network operational and running smoothly.

[Benny1985]

Having transacted tens of thousands of USD in LTC and BTC, I can say that, at least from my experiences, LTC is much better to use.

With BTC, I've run into confirmations taking 2+ hrs based on the law of averages amongst 6 confirmations. Comparatively, with LTC, the same averages yield much less variance, which is vastly more beneficial.

For most, its a simple difference, but very important for transactions, and pulling the funding out of crypto and into fiat. I've swallowed hundreds of USD in losses due to market swings because I couldn't pull out BTC fast enough. Whereas with LTC, this has never been a problem.

And you have the 51% security issues with BTC vs. LTC. Go look at the BTC blockchain. Its been so close to being forked and 51%'ed recently, its insane. Bitcoin purists don't want to admit it, but hitting 6 blocks in a row for a medium-sized ASIC company would be much, MUCH easier than doing the same on Litecoin.