Litecoin is officially dead

[Alchemix]

Since i got into LTC (Jan of this year  ) I have seen a crazy fall in price.
It seems like there are new coins coming out every few hours.

I liked how LTC was faster to send, then BTC.
I still have all my LTC ive ever mined (which isnt many) but im wondering what the future has in store for this coin like everyone else.

[1714112087]

1714112087

[1714112087]

1714112087

[1714112087]

1714112087

[poisenrang]

''officially'' dead.

[BCFrictionless]

Litecoin is not dead but a downward freefall leading to death

[El Dude]

Since i got into LTC (Jan of this year  ) I have seen a crazy fall in price.
It seems like there are new coins coming out every few hours.

I liked how LTC was faster to send, then BTC.
I still have all my LTC ive ever mined (which isnt many) but im wondering what the future has in store for this coin like everyone else.

you wanna see a crazy fall ? look at vertcoin from $10 to 10 cents in months

[dewdeded]

Confirmed officially dead.

[Skinnkavaj]

Litecoin dies every year. 

[joe 90]

Litecoin dies every year.  

It recently crashed, then bounced back up again. I initially thought it was dead, then started wishing I had bought some when they were cheap after it bounced back up.

[rikkejohn]

Litecoin is dead, but oddly darkota's tip, Darkcoin, has halved in value against it.

Darkota, if you had sold your DRK for LTC when you started this idiotic thread, you could cash in today and buy twice as many DRK.

Then start the Butterexchange, with DRK as the main coin. lol.

darktota, you are such a loser.



Re: BTC-e not adding every coin.

They are smart enough to realise that any short term gain will be lost when BTC-e becomes another Bittrex.

BTC-e will likely delist a couple of before it even considers adding. At the moment there is no stability in cryptoland. The last thing needed is another string of FeathercoinXs.

[kotarius]

ASIC/GPU RESISTANCE was NEVER PROMISED by LITECOIN. Only new retarded miners kept repeating this mantra, trying to make it true.

What a dead coin, I've never seen a coin more dead than litecoin.

OH WAIT:

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/assets/difficulty/litecoin-hash_rate-all.png?1406804708

[okbit]

With all the new alts out there, what does LTC have to offer? What is it's reason for being?

[Its About Sharing]

With all the new alts out there, what does LTC have to offer? What is it's reason for being?

I'm not holding any LTC right now, but I will say it has a few things going for it:
Huge Hash rate (but with ASICs coming out in full force and this early in the emission curve, that might be a bit dangerous in a centralized way)
Charlie Lee behind it - Family connections, might be able to help implementation
Most have heard of it who know about Cryptos, still relatively inexpensive.

That was off the top of my head, once big money starts moving into any alt, it will have a self fulfilling prophecy though. They will decide imo, at least short to mid term.

[Melbustus]

...
I liked how LTC was faster to send, then BTC.
...

Then it was a fundamental misconception about proof-of-work-based consensus blockchain systems that tripped you up. None of Litecoin's tweaks (conf time, supply, mining alg) offer any real benefit over bitcoin. They're all just irrelevant tradeoffs. Faster confs yield a chain that re-orgs more, so you need more confs to be as secure; supply magnitude is not relevant at all given divisibility; and mining algs all converge to the same long-run least-cost-producer dynamics.

Forgive me, but Litecoin was attractive to a lot of people who didn't really think things through, and were primarily letting the "hey, maybe I didn't miss *this* boat!" mentality get in the way of thinking deeply about why a coin like Litecoin should or should not retain long-run value relative to bitcoin.

It's a shame that it's taken this rash of new coins to make people realize that Litecoin ultimately doesn't offer very much to the crypto-ecosystem, but so be it.
 

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

With all the new alts out there, what does LTC have to offer? What is it's reason for being?

Do you buy into every new alt that comes out ? Most of the shiny new coins are polished turds with the same bunch of greedy devs that simply want your $.

[Este Nuno]

...
I liked how LTC was faster to send, then BTC.
...

Then it was a fundamental misconception about proof-of-work-based consensus blockchain systems that tripped you up. None of Litecoin's tweaks (conf time, supply, mining alg) offer any real benefit over bitcoin. They're all just irrelevant tradeoffs. Faster confs yield a chain that re-orgs more, so you need more confs to be as secure; supply magnitude is not relevant at all given divisibility; and mining algs all converge to the same long-run least-cost-producer dynamics.

Forgive me, but Litecoin was attractive to a lot of people who didn't really think things through, and were primarily letting the "hey, maybe I didn't miss *this* boat!" mentality get in the way of thinking deeply about why a coin like Litecoin should or should not retain long-run value relative to bitcoin.

It's a shame that it's taken this rash of new coins to make people realize that Litecoin ultimately doesn't offer very much to the crypto-ecosystem, but so be it.
 

I think you're wrong. These things are supposed to function as currencies. For someone who considers one confirmation sufficient for a regular sized transaction a short block time is much, much better than the incredibly slow configuration of Bitcoin. Waiting 40 minutes or even an hour for a confirmation is not acceptable when there are faster alternatives.

Yes, if you're buying a house you might still want to wait the same total amount of time to feel 100% secure against double spends. And yes, hashes will be wasted and blocks will be orphaned. But these things are supposed to be currencies. Currencies that are used every day to buy groceries, and pay your internet bill. One confirmation is sufficient for any transaction that's not large enough that you'll want to take extra measures.

[joe 90]

If you are using these things as currencies, then they ideally need to be as fast, or faster than debit cards. People in queues start blowing fuses if someone in front of them pays with a debit card, and it takes longer than a minute to confirm the transaction.

[Melbustus]

...
I liked how LTC was faster to send, then BTC.
...

Then it was a fundamental misconception about proof-of-work-based consensus blockchain systems that tripped you up. None of Litecoin's tweaks (conf time, supply, mining alg) offer any real benefit over bitcoin. They're all just irrelevant tradeoffs. Faster confs yield a chain that re-orgs more, so you need more confs to be as secure; supply magnitude is not relevant at all given divisibility; and mining algs all converge to the same long-run least-cost-producer dynamics.

Forgive me, but Litecoin was attractive to a lot of people who didn't really think things through, and were primarily letting the "hey, maybe I didn't miss *this* boat!" mentality get in the way of thinking deeply about why a coin like Litecoin should or should not retain long-run value relative to bitcoin.

It's a shame that it's taken this rash of new coins to make people realize that Litecoin ultimately doesn't offer very much to the crypto-ecosystem, but so be it.
 

I think you're wrong.

K. I'm not.

These things are supposed to function as currencies. For someone who considers one confirmation sufficient for a regular sized transaction a short block time is much, much better than the incredibly slow configuration of Bitcoin. Waiting 40 minutes or even an hour for a confirmation is not acceptable when there are faster alternatives.

Yes, if you're buying a house you might still want to wait the same total amount of time to feel 100% secure against double spends. And yes, hashes will be wasted and blocks will be orphaned. But these things are supposed to be currencies. Currencies that are used every day to buy groceries, and pay your internet bill. One confirmation is sufficient for any transaction that's not large enough that you'll want to take extra measures.

By that logic, 0-conf is also fine for day-to-day transactions, and indeed that's what every physical btc-accepting retailer I've ever used does. I don't see a rash of double-spends against coffee shops as particularly likely.

As to litecoin specifically, there's essentially no use-case where a statistical 2.5min avg conf is acceptable but a statistical 10min avg conf is not.

[Este Nuno]

...
I liked how LTC was faster to send, then BTC.
...

Then it was a fundamental misconception about proof-of-work-based consensus blockchain systems that tripped you up. None of Litecoin's tweaks (conf time, supply, mining alg) offer any real benefit over bitcoin. They're all just irrelevant tradeoffs. Faster confs yield a chain that re-orgs more, so you need more confs to be as secure; supply magnitude is not relevant at all given divisibility; and mining algs all converge to the same long-run least-cost-producer dynamics.

Forgive me, but Litecoin was attractive to a lot of people who didn't really think things through, and were primarily letting the "hey, maybe I didn't miss *this* boat!" mentality get in the way of thinking deeply about why a coin like Litecoin should or should not retain long-run value relative to bitcoin.

It's a shame that it's taken this rash of new coins to make people realize that Litecoin ultimately doesn't offer very much to the crypto-ecosystem, but so be it.
 

I think you're wrong.

K. I'm not.

These things are supposed to function as currencies. For someone who considers one confirmation sufficient for a regular sized transaction a short block time is much, much better than the incredibly slow configuration of Bitcoin. Waiting 40 minutes or even an hour for a confirmation is not acceptable when there are faster alternatives.

Yes, if you're buying a house you might still want to wait the same total amount of time to feel 100% secure against double spends. And yes, hashes will be wasted and blocks will be orphaned. But these things are supposed to be currencies. Currencies that are used every day to buy groceries, and pay your internet bill. One confirmation is sufficient for any transaction that's not large enough that you'll want to take extra measures.

By that logic, 0-conf is also fine for day-to-day transactions, and indeed that's what every physical btc-accepting retailer I've ever used does. I don't see a rash of double-spends against coffee shops as particularly likely.

As to litecoin specifically, there's essentially no use-case where a statistical 2.5min avg conf is acceptable but a statistical 10min avg conf is not.

No, because 0 conf transactions are susceptible to a whole other category of double spend attacks. (Race attacks, Finney attacks ect.)

And yes, the use case is when 1 confirmation is considered acceptable. Which is the case in a very large amount of transactions.

There are lots of transactions that are going to be fine on 0 confirmations. But I've waited countless times up to an hour for many transactions to complete that only require one confirmation.

[manfred]

[devphp]

Measuring performance by month is for pump-n-dump kind of trading, isn't it?

[thecast]

So who will take LTC place?