Why the loss of confidence in litecoin?

[Netnox]

I bet you all will care when Litecoin gets more attention and it's value has gone up a lot. Like i said early Bitcoin days arrogant people thought the same and didn't care, thought it wasn't going to make it, redditors posting their big sell off stories since their trust was gone because of mtgox/btc/govenment/regulator issues. Look where it's now. You can believe whatever you want, time will tell. Also i'm investing with money i can afford to lose and i made a nice profit with Litecoins present, but the biggest up rallies has yet to come

[1714148792]

1714148792

[1714148792]

1714148792

[1714148792]

1714148792

[1714148792]

1714148792

[1714148792]

1714148792

[Come-from-Beyond]

because litecoin brings nothing significant to the table that bitcoin does not have.

+1

[kokjo]

I bet you all will care when Litecoin gets more attention and it's value has gone up a lot. Like i said early Bitcoin days arrogant people thought the same and didn't care, thought it wasn't going to make it, redditors posting their big sell off stories since their trust was gone because of mtgox/btc/govenment/regulator issues. Look where it's now. You can believe whatever you want, time will tell

cool, just repeat yourself. It is not the same critisism that hit bitcoin when started. Your whole argument is built around that the history of Litecoin is similar to Bitcoin's history.
Quick hint for you: IT IS NOT.

The reason for this, is that before bitcoin came into existence there existed no such concept as cryptocurency or blockchain. Bitcoin invented this. Litecoin is a copy "made in chain"-style. The void that Litecoin tries to fill, is already filled by Bitcoin. The void that bitcoin filled does not exist anymore, so the chance for Litecoin's survival is very very small.

Bitcoin did not exist before Bitcoin existed.
But bitcoin existed before Litecoin existed.

Litecoin is a reinvention of the wheel.

[VforVictory]

When BTC drops, LTC will rise. Same old story... Oh, and I hear Gox will post LTC "soon"! 

[Netnox]

I bet you all will care when Litecoin gets more attention and it's value has gone up a lot. Like i said early Bitcoin days arrogant people thought the same and didn't care, thought it wasn't going to make it, redditors posting their big sell off stories since their trust was gone because of mtgox/btc/govenment/regulator issues. Look where it's now. You can believe whatever you want, time will tell

cool, just repeat yourself. It is not the same critisism that hit bitcoin when started. Your whole argument is built around that the history of Litecoin is similar to Bitcoin's history.
Quick hint for you: IT IS NOT.

The reason for this, is that before bitcoin came into existence there existed no such concept as cryptocurency or blockchain. Bitcoin invented this. Litecoin is a copy "made in chain"-style. The void that Litecoin tries to fill, is already filled by Bitcoin. The void that bitcoin filled does not exist anymore, so the chance for Litecoin's survival is very very small.

Bitcoin did not exist before Bitcoin existed.
But bitcoin existed before Litecoin existed.

Litecoin is a reinvention of the wheel.

There just can't be only 1 digital currency in mainstream. The today's stock/currencies/commodities world we live in you don't find only 1 of them but much more different kinds/values/purposes. It's the system we live in where people get the chance to search for alternatives and this counts the same for digital currencies. In the near future, next to BTC there will be a secondary digital currency with the same attention as BTC, maybe even a third one. We are still in a very very early stage of cryptos. In a couple of years there won't be only BTC which will be popular and the second coin i see that has the most potential to succeed in the future (if BTC doesn't fail) is LTC. Now i'm sure the dev team behind Litecoin is working on it's progress. Like i said time will tell. You are looking at it from a technical perspective but it's not only the technical side that matters or the argument of Litecoin has to differentiate itself massively from Bitcoin to succeed. It doesn't have to be like that, not to mention Litecoin is not exactly the same and it's dev team are working to make it better and more different. It needs TIME

[Netnox]

The today's stock/currencies/commodities world we live in you don't find only 1 of them but much more different kinds/values/purposes.

Cute, but litecoin has no different "kinds", "values" or "purposes".

I was referring to different markets in general, your answer didn't make sense at all

[Lohoris]

I have LTC but it's a hedge against something unforseen happening to Bitcoin.

Give me one single example of something bad which might happen to affect Bitcoin but not affect neither Litecoin nor cryptography in general.
(hint: is sha is broken, we would have much bigger problems than Bitcoin)

[NewLiberty]

I have LTC but it's a hedge against something unforseen happening to Bitcoin.

Give me one single example of something bad which might happen to affect Bitcoin but not affect neither Litecoin nor cryptography in general.
(hint: is sha is broken, we would have much bigger problems than Bitcoin)

It looks like you provided one for yourself, but with the caveat that if it were to occur that you would also have other concerns.

Another might be a code implementation.
A third might a bad effect from a hostile fork (say Mastercoin has something weird happen, zerocoin, colored coin, etc)

Maybe some might advocate a world with just one Operating System as the best of all possible worlds, but people are free to choose.

It is also a good thing to have another viable currency with an active economy where other sorts of experimentation can occur.  Personally I'd have wished hostile forks such as Mastercoin be implemented on Litecoin first, but I don't have the luxury of making such choices.

[kokjo]

how many of you have heard of the ip protocol? this is NOT about OS'es or freedom of speech/choice. its about have a common protocol for communication/money transfers, because that is in the best interest of everybody.

[Flashman]

IMO, it's all temporary burnout due to Mt Gox's unfulfilled stated ambitions.

Seems to me it makes a perfect little sidekick for BTC, I see buying coffee or article subscriptions or MP3s with LTC, fast(er) microtransactions. There's always going to be "disputed territory" between the two of them, but I think there's stuff that BTC doesn't necessarily want to bend itself over backwards to accommodate, that litecoin will.


BTW "7950s in milkcrates" jab, hah, took only 6 months to be a snob about it. At last peak in spring, with all the transaction volume that entailed, most of BTC was running on that kind of thing, apart from the 5 people that got B1 Avalons by then.


Anyway, I'd think it would be trading at 7 or 8 bucks by now if the Mt Gox stupidity had not ensnared it. It probably will be about there a month after the first Gox bubble and crash, or Gox claim no way no never no how on LTC, and release it from the bonds of uncertainty.


Sign up for my cryptofinance newsletter for only 6 BTC for a year ..... (Kidding)


Flash

[Lohoris]

Another might be a code implementation.

Wat?
You really think that there might be a bug in bitcoin, a software with many expert developers and thousands of active uses, so bad to completely undermine it and unfixable... and you compare it to litecoin, that... I can't even bear to finish the sentence.
It's unbelievable.

A third might a bad effect from a hostile fork (say Mastercoin has something weird happen, zerocoin, colored coin, etc)

And what could these coins do to undermine bitcoin?
And why should litecoin be immune instead?

Maybe some might advocate a world with just one Operating System as the best of all possible worlds, but people are free to choose.

So far you have only said "bitcoin could fail because of X, litecoin is not bitcoin, hence if bitcoin fails litecoin will be still here".
This is beyond nonsense.
You should have pointed out something litecoin-specific that saves it while bitcoin fails.
And, btw, the resons for possible failures do not work anyway, as I already explained.

Please try again.

[kokjo]

Another might be a code implementation.

Wat?
You really think that there might be a bug in bitcoin, a software with many expert developers and thousands of active uses, so bad to completely undermine it and unfixable... and you compare it to litecoin, that... I can't even bear to finish the sentence.
It's unbelievable.

there is bug in the satoshi client, only a fool would say otherwise. On the other hand the bitcoin protocol is open, and anyone is free to implement it, i for one have made my own toy client in python. the problem with litecoin is there is only one client, and that is heavily based upon the satoshi bitcoin client. and i don't think there exists a alternative client for Litecoin(no, i have not researched it).

A bug in the satoshi client, would also like be a bug in the Litecoin client. but a bug in the satoshi client would not do as much damage, as there exist alternative clients.

[Lohoris]

because litecoin brings nothing significant to the table that bitcoin does not have.

+1

That is a poor argument. The same could be said about Hertz vs. Avis, or AMD vs. Intel, or Coke vs. Pepsi.

What Litecoin brings to the table is that it is a viable alternative. That doesn't count for much (as shown by the disparity in values), but it does count for something.

Litecoin is a couple years behind bitcoin in adoption, and it will be a tough road to mass adoption because it will always be overshadowed by bitcoin. I don't know if it will succeed or not, but I think it will.

Completely wrong.

If you buy an AMD chip you can still use the same programs as people who use an Intel chip.

If you buy litecoins you have a different currency, incompatible with bitcoin.

[kokjo]

because litecoin brings nothing significant to the table that bitcoin does not have.

+1

That is a poor argument. The same could be said about Hertz vs. Avis, or AMD vs. Intel, or Coke vs. Pepsi.

What Litecoin brings to the table is that it is a viable alternative. That doesn't count for much (as shown by the disparity in values), but it does count for something.

Litecoin is a couple years behind bitcoin in adoption, and it will be a tough road to mass adoption because it will always be overshadowed by bitcoin. I don't know if it will succeed or not, but I think it will.

the Bitcoin/Litecoin is not the same as AMD/Intel or Coke/Pepsi. There is a difference between AMD and Intel, and that difference is significant enough to actually make them competitors. Bitcoin and Litecoin is also different, but they are not so different that it matters. Therefor because bitcoin is biggest, Litecoin will die out.

If a altcoin be able to coexist with Bitcoin, it most be different enough

[Lohoris]

because litecoin brings nothing significant to the table that bitcoin does not have.

+1

That is a poor argument. The same could be said about Hertz vs. Avis, or AMD vs. Intel, or Coke vs. Pepsi.
What Litecoin brings to the table is that it is a viable alternative. That doesn't count for much (as shown by the disparity in values), but it does count for something.
Litecoin is a couple years behind bitcoin in adoption, and it will be a tough road to mass adoption because it will always be overshadowed by bitcoin. I don't know if it will succeed or not, but I think it will.

Completely wrong.
If you buy an AMD chip you can still use the same programs as people who use an Intel chip.
If you buy litecoins you have a different currency, incompatible with bitcoin.

Wrong? You just proved my point.

I am free to buy an AMD chip because this will not prevent me from doing stuff I would do with an Intel chip, since they are compatible. They are compatible alternatives. If I need an Intel chip, I can buy an AMD chip instea and be fine.
If I need bitcoins, I buy bitcoins. If I need bitcoins, buying litecoins won't help me, since they are incompatible with bitcoins.
Get it now?

[Lohoris]

Yes. I get it. You totally missed my point. I'm saying that because AMD and Intel are compatible, AMD brings nothing to the table that Intel doesn't already have, yet AMD is a successful company. This is an example that counters your statement that Litecoin won't survive because it brings nothing to the table.

AMD brings to the table a chip which is compatible with Intel's, so you can buy either, pick your choice.

Litecoin brings an incompatible network, so you have no reason to use it when you can use the main network instead.

I.e. in what exact situation it would be more convenient to me to buy litecoins instead of bitcoins? (other than being a speculator)

[NewLiberty]

Another might be a code implementation.

Wat?
You really think that there might be a bug in bitcoin, a software with many expert developers and thousands of active uses, so bad to completely undermine it and unfixable... and you compare it to litecoin, that... I can't even bear to finish the sentence.
It's unbelievable.

I am happy to believe that Bitcoin will be forever perfect and that the smartest people in the world will always and forever write the code and that all the updates will also be perfect, and that the testing considers every future possibility that may break something.

But I also like a backstop.

A third might a bad effect from a hostile fork (say Mastercoin has something weird happen, zerocoin, colored coin, etc)

And what could these coins do to undermine bitcoin?
And why should litecoin be immune instead?

On the contrary.  If there is some ill effect, I would prefer it happen with Litecoin.  

Maybe some might advocate a world with just one Operating System as the best of all possible worlds, but people are free to choose.

So far you have only said "bitcoin could fail because of X, litecoin is not bitcoin, hence if bitcoin fails litecoin will be still here".
This is beyond nonsense.
You should have pointed out something litecoin-specific that saves it while bitcoin fails.
And, btw, the reasons for possible failures do not work anyway, as I already explained.

Please try again.

In our perfect world, nothing bad will ever happen, and if it does it won't matter, and if it matters, it will get fixed fast enough, and if it doesn't get fixed fast enough, a miracle will save us.
I hope the currency lives long enough to survive our optimism.  Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
My great grandkids deserve good things too.

I am sure your experience with globe spanning 5 sigma implementations is at least equal to mine, and that you also have more than 20 years in watching what was once thought of as perfect crumble, and have the confidence that the smartest people are all on our side and that nothing can stop us.  

This is so very new.  Just a bit over 10 years in the making, and less than 5 in the running.  It is too soon to strangle the siblings in their cribs.

[Yurizhai]

Another might be a code implementation.

Wat?
You really think that there might be a bug in bitcoin, a software with many expert developers and thousands of active uses, so bad to completely undermine it and unfixable... and you compare it to litecoin, that... I can't even bear to finish the sentence.
It's unbelievable.

I am happy to believe that Bitcoin will be forever perfect and that the smartest people in the world will always and forever write the code and that all the updates will also be perfect, and that the testing considers every future possibility that may break something.

But I also like a backstop.

A third might a bad effect from a hostile fork (say Mastercoin has something weird happen, zerocoin, colored coin, etc)

And what could these coins do to undermine bitcoin?
And why should litecoin be immune instead?

On the contrary.  If there is some ill effect, I would prefer it happen with Litecoin.  

Maybe some might advocate a world with just one Operating System as the best of all possible worlds, but people are free to choose.

So far you have only said "bitcoin could fail because of X, litecoin is not bitcoin, hence if bitcoin fails litecoin will be still here".
This is beyond nonsense.
You should have pointed out something litecoin-specific that saves it while bitcoin fails.
And, btw, the reasons for possible failures do not work anyway, as I already explained.

Please try again.

In our perfect world, nothing bad will ever happen, and if it does it won't matter, and if it matters, it will get fixed fast enough, and if it doesn't get fixed fast enough, a miracle will save us.
I hope the currency lives long enough to survive our optimism.  Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
My great grandkids deserve good things too.

I am sure your experience with globe spanning 5 sigma implementations is at least equal to mine, and that you also have more than 20 years in watching what was once thought of as perfect crumble, and have the confidence that the smartest people are all on our side and that nothing can stop us.  

This is so very new.  Just a bit over 10 years in the making, and less than 5 in the running.  It is too soon to strangle the siblings in their cribs.

Sure. The idea that something, perhaps many things co-existing with Bitcoin is one I share. But for it to be LTC, no thanks.

[NewLiberty]

Sure. The idea that something, perhaps many things co-existing with Bitcoin is one I share. But for it to be LTC, no thanks.

OK, so some benefit may be there.
What is the cost of Litecoin's existence that folks would see it ended?

[Yurizhai]

Sure. The idea that something, perhaps many things co-existing with Bitcoin is one I share. But for it to be LTC, no thanks.

OK, so some benefit may be there.
What is the cost of Litecoin's existence that folks would see it ended?

It doesn't need to end, I just don't like how it's currently treated compared to some other coins out there. It's really more of a community issue. I see so many people parading around with LTC like it's so special when there's other coins doing it or easily more; and yet they are so vile about it when you mention them. Makes you gain a vendetta about the coin.