Scrypt Bitcoin Threads NOT Allowed

[pyromaniac]

If the Bitcoin will return into the hands of people, it will becomes much cheaper than now. So, what did you prefer: a heap of useless cheap coins, where Bitcoin just one of them, or expensive Bitcoin rising in price in time?

[1714158656]

1714158656

[1714158656]

1714158656

[1714158656]

1714158656

[1714158656]

1714158656

[1714158656]

1714158656

[heatgsm]

If the Bitcoin will return into the hands of people, it will becomes much cheaper than now. So, what did you prefer: a heap of useless cheap coins, where Bitcoin just one of them, or expensive Bitcoin rising in price in time?

  You should ask yourself (or study a bit of economics) who is the driving force behind the value of "money".

[HeroC]

So is this for the alternative currency 'Scrypt Bitcoin' or for any currency that uses scrypt?

[STT]

for any currency

[kelsey]

Those that stay out of the Altcoin scene in general are at a high risk of being caught in some level of fraud facilitated by the Scrypt Bitcoin, due to its name.
SaltySpitoon

Yep and hanging around the backstreet of this forum and you can easily see the level of fraud associated with Bitcoin, high risk of fraud with btc so can we ban talk on it too?

[chris190]

there is an exchange of btc2 to btc?
I hope short

[Operatr]

This coin needs to be renamed, pure and simple. Calling it Scrypt Bitcoin (or Bitcoin 2) is just lazy and confusing. Until it is renamed I think the staff here are right to bury it.

[CIYAM]

Clearly the *only* way this alt thinks it can make a name for itself is by using the Bitcoin name (by any other name no-one would have given a shit about it - we already have LTC so it adds absolutely *zero*).

It's funny that the further these alts go to try and muddy the waters the further they just drive themselves all into oblivion.

I had stated many months back that I hoped we'd see a new alt-coin every day (as I knew that would make them all worthless which has now pretty much transpired) - so now with this new crap I hope we will see a Bitcoin3, Bitcoin4,  etc. being released every day as well (and you guys shouldn't be unhappy about that at all as that is *fair* after all).

If you want to be taken seriously then stop with the "it's not fair that I didn't know about Bitcoins when they were cheap to buy/mine". If you want to *make a difference* then copy & paste plus minor alteration is not the way (it would be a bit like every band just copying the same #1 hit and changing the lyrics slightly and expecting they should all get the same fame).

Bitcoin is Open Source and that is a good thing - but lazy people copying and pasting and not even bothering to change the name in order to try and profit out of confusion are just "wannabes" and nothing more.

[smoothie]

I agree with this. The name "Bitcoin" is misleading when naming a clone of Bitcoin that.

[Nordstern]

Scrypt Bitcoin is trash. Even the name Bitcoin 2 word be more worse, because a Bitcoin 2.0 with extended Features of the real Developers is already planned. The scrypt Bitcoin is only aimed th make gain of the name of the real bitcoin. Nothing else! What other reason would be to name the coin the same?
Lots of people will get harmed because of the overwriting of the wallet. This is an honest danger and will frighten new users!
Stay away from this coin!

[Fablio2]

Scrypt Bitcoin is trash. Even the name Bitcoin 2 word be more worse, because a Bitcoin 2.0 with extended Features of the real Developers is already planned. The scrypt Bitcoin is only aimed th make gain of the name of the real bitcoin. Nothing else! What other reason would be to name the coin the same?
Lots of people will get harmed because of the overwriting of the wallet. This is an honest danger and will frighten new users!
Stay away from this coin!

You can not exclude that it also is that Bitcoin 2.0.
And we can not exclude that you yourself are currently mining this Scrypt Bitcoin 2.0

[ElectricMucus]

I can't wait for the next Drama here.

[ASICSRUS]

IF IT'S THAT THREATENING WHAT SO WE CALL IT?LOL

[dddbtc]

Scrypt Bitcoin is trash. Even the name Bitcoin 2 word be more worse, because a Bitcoin 2.0 with extended Features of the real Developers is already planned. The scrypt Bitcoin is only aimed th make gain of the name of the real bitcoin. Nothing else! What other reason would be to name the coin the same?
Lots of people will get harmed because of the overwriting of the wallet. This is an honest danger and will frighten new users!
Stay away from this coin!

+1

[JoelKatz]

Most of the people don`t seem to grasp the idea that was behind this whole damn charade ...

"Bitcoin was supposed to be decentralised and run by the people, the general public. However due to ASIC, this now means that the network can really only be controlled by the rich and powerful, the governments and corporations and of course the ASIC manufactures.

Bitcoin Scrypt changes that and brings Bitcoin back into the hands of the people, if fact, pretty much anyone with a GPU can mine Bitcoin Scrypt and mine a nice wedge."

It's a bad idea for four reasons:

1) It's going to be much less secure. To attack Bitcoin, you have to invest in ASICs, which you make worthless if your attack is successful. To attack an scrypt-based coin, you can use botnets, rented supercomputer clusters, and so on, which retain their value after their attack.

2) You can't divide up value until you create it. The change in the mining algorithm is an attempt to more fairly divide the value created by the coin. But you have to create the value first. What value does this coin add that it divides?

3) If it's profitable to mine, more people will mine until it's just barely profitable, no more so than other things people could do. This will eventually mean that only whoever has the most efficient setup (best hardware, lowest power cost, and so on) will actually make a profit. This will inevitably result in centralization.

4) Putting "Bitcoin" in its name seems like a deliberate attempt to convey an official connection to Bitcoin that doesn't exist and is likely to create confusion. If its developers truly believed in it, they wouldn't do something so cynical and malicious as this.

[Fablio2]

Most of the people don`t seem to grasp the idea that was behind this whole damn charade ...

"Bitcoin was supposed to be decentralised and run by the people, the general public. However due to ASIC, this now means that the network can really only be controlled by the rich and powerful, the governments and corporations and of course the ASIC manufactures.

Bitcoin Scrypt changes that and brings Bitcoin back into the hands of the people, if fact, pretty much anyone with a GPU can mine Bitcoin Scrypt and mine a nice wedge."

It's going to be much less secure. To attack an scrypt-based coin, you can use botnets, rented supercomputer clusters, and so on, which retain their value after their attack.

Lol ,
While the coin is not appreciated - no attack will be, because it is pointless. When it is appreciated - the network hashrate increases and attack will be very, very difficult. And there is no powerful botnets on the gpu, but there are a lot of powerful CPU botnets. Because of that worst of all are protected CPU coins. (and with the arrival of ASIC  - sha256 coins also become unprotected. Please read below)

To attack a script currency with high hashrate need huge resources and electricity. But to attack sha256 you need a few of super-ASIC, which quite possibly are already being developed someone (the government of a country, or someone else - does not matter). For now the most powerful Asic is 1 terrahesh/s. And will be ASIC's with PetaHash/s, ExaHash/s and all the present-day powerful Bitcoin network can be attacked by a few of Super-ASIC. But to attack the script-coin with great hashrate is very difficult. No attack will be the huge ongoing energy costs and equipment, facilities maintenance, etc. Sha256 will be killed by the atackers or simply they will take themself almost all of the new coins. Depends on who will have the Super-ASIC's (the government of a country, or someone else).
It's no decentralized with the arrival of ASIC at all.
Remove inhibitions and censorship. Let things go their way. Time will judge all.

[JoelKatz]

But to attack sha256 you need a few of super-ASIC, which quite possibly are already being developed someone (the government of a country, or someone else - does not matter).

A "few" super-ASICs won't do it. In less than a year, hundreds of thousands of super-ASICs will be in the hands of Bitcoin miners around the world. These will all be mining Bitcoins, making the currency secure, as they have no other purpose.

It's no decentralized with the arrival of ASIC at all.

As I argued, decentralization is economically infeasible. If mining is particularly profitable, more and more people will do it until it's just barely profitable. Then primarily those with some advantage (cheap power, optimized hardware, whatever) will increase mining and those with sub-optimal equipment or conditions will stop mining, leading to centralization.

Bitcoin, whether by luck or genius, got this right.

[heatgsm]

As I argued, decentralization is economically infeasible. If mining is particularly profitable, more and more people will do it until it's just barely profitable. Then primarily those with some advantage (cheap power, optimized hardware, whatever) will increase mining and those with sub-optimal equipment or conditions will stop mining, leading to centralization.

Bitcoin, whether by luck or genius, got this right.

  Then wtf is with this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo .. remeber it !? Min 0.03 - " Fist Decentralized ...bla bla bla " ... So, back to the drawing board. The markets will decide in the end, no worries.

[tokeweed]

LOL

[JoelKatz]

As I argued, decentralization is economically infeasible. If mining is particularly profitable, more and more people will do it until it's just barely profitable. Then primarily those with some advantage (cheap power, optimized hardware, whatever) will increase mining and those with sub-optimal equipment or conditions will stop mining, leading to centralization.

Bitcoin, whether by luck or genius, got this right.

Then wtf is with this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo .. remeber it !? Min 0.03 - " Fist Decentralized ...bla bla bla " ... So, back to the drawing board. The markets will decide in the end, no worries.

Sorry, If I was unclear. I was responding to this:

It's no decentralized with the arrival of ASIC at all.

And I was just using the same term he was using. In the sense that ASICs centralize Bitcoin, that particular kind of centralization is economically infeasible to prevent. Bitcoin is, of course, decentralized in many other important ways.