Litecoin v. Bitcoin

[ChuckBuck]

If my wife at the time got a silver engagement ring, I'd probably still be single.

man i feel sorry for you

LOL, don't mourn for me, I'm not dead....yet.   

Marriage has been good to me.  Just spawned my first baby girl this year, and plan to entrust her with my Bitcoin savings.   

[kelsey]

Litecoin became the #2 coin because of how it was developed and the niche that is served in the early days. It was created by the already established Bitcoin community with the idea that eventually Bitcoin would hit huge $ values, and people would be hesitant to send someone 0.00050102 for a cup of coffee, so why not create a tandem currency designed to be lower valued for smaller transactions? Not to mention, BFL's Jalapenos were set to release shortly after Litecoin came onto the scene, so all of the Bitcoin miners that were panicking about their expensive GPU farms becoming obsolete had financial reason to support Litecoin. (Due to BFL being BFL it was another 8 months before anything came out)

There was a point when a very large portion of the Bitcoin forums/Bitcoin users in general supported Litecoin, because of what I stated before. They weren't in competition so no ill will was held. After the Alt Coin shitstorm where every coin in existance jumped in price following the Bitcoin take off, people realized it was profitable to pump, dump, and scam with coins meant to manipulate people and then fall into obscurity after their Bitcoins were parted from them. This yielded more Bitcoin purists and the community we see today.

There was a time when creating a crypto currency was a feat. Now there are generators that produce them for you, the thrill and support for alt coins is now mostly held by the dumpers.

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

But what do you think will be used instead of PoW? Another algorithm, another type of proof? PoS maybe? Thing is... if we want decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, we need them to work the way Bitcoin does, the market can't possibly take over the core principles.

i have no idea what they'll move it too, and i think at this point either do they.

"decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin" ....i seriously question peoples definition of decentralised when i read statements like that.

[R2D221]

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?

[kelsey]

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?

then you wont like 20:59   in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

so yeah not my idea.

[Bit_Happy]

~ 2 months ago, Litecoin spiked 50% in a single day. Eventually LTC will rally again, it is only a matter of time.
When BTC goes mainstream, LTC will still have a place, even if it's glory days are over.

[R2D221]

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?

then you wont like 20:59   in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

so yeah not my idea.

You're right. I don't like it

[FinerVapor]

Litecoin - bigger risk, higher reward. In fact it was 35x of todays value at the last bubble.

[Omikifuse]

Bitcoin went fro $40 to less than $2, a bigger fall than BTC.

But sometimes LTC do bigger rises than BTC.

LTC might be better if you buy just before a BTC rise, but of course it is more riskier

[manfred]

The Gold Silver ratio is well known for hundreds of years. Currently at about 75 to 1

This is the last years (from first day of Litecoin USD trade) and with the Bitcoin Litecoin ratio (log view)
https://i.imgur.com/w5Vubnz.png and the same data in normal linear view

[Gyfts]

Bitcoin would be first to hit mainstream so that's why I believe it's better. I could see it being more practical in day to day situations as companies like Dell, Dish, ect. have already adopted it. The community is also more bigger with Bitcoin which has its benefits.

[teukon]

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?

then you wont like 20:59   in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

so yeah not my idea.

This citation does not support your claim that POW was only ever designed to be short term.

In the video, Mike Hearn claims (and hopes) that one day, someone will come up with a better system.  He explain what he doesn't like about proof-of-work by observing that it is barely a rough approximation to "one person, one vote".

I find nothing objectionable here.  This is purely a statement about technological progress which promotes neither proof-of-stake nor indeed democracy.

[kelsey]

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?

then you wont like 20:59   in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

so yeah not my idea.

This citation does not support your claim that POW was only ever designed to be short term.

In the video, Mike Hearn claims (and hopes) that one day, someone will come up with a better system.  He explain what he doesn't like about proof-of-work by observing that it is barely a rough approximation to "one person, one vote".

I find nothing objectionable here.  This is purely a statement about technological progress which promotes neither proof-of-stake nor indeed democracy.

i was replying to "Why do you get such an odd idea?" and gave a quote from just one example of a video i'd watched 10 min earlier to back up that even the core devs will backup that pow is not the future direction of bitcoin, and they have no idea what will replace it.

now as for satoshi view it is in all the old crypto newsgroups from before this forum, satoshi was look for a distribution method and went through many until just settling on pow stating on many occasions that that is a shortterm fix, and simple i don't have the time to got through all that too highlight that......so as we say in the daytrading DYOR.


time and time again i make statements from what i heard, read etc from the core team, satoshi, only repeating what i heard and read, and people shoot it down......but i never make this shit up, i just repeat...so i don't need to continually debate it ad nausea......i mean shit people do your own research on what the core team is upto, thinking,doing etc

the lack of research is why these core developers are able to head down such a centralised root for bitcoin.

did you know the core devs don't agree with blockchain voting because they don't want people telling them what to code?

did you know Gavin and its from his own words is increasing the block size even if bitcoin users are against, stating he only has to convince 5 people to do it (thats less people the had to be convinced to go with the banks big bailout. )...and good ol Mikey wants it too be just ONE!

(note i'm not debating whether or not these are the way to go, just that the cores lack of respect for the grass roots users, which makes in centralised).

now the reason why the core gets away with this shit, and the reason why the shit hits the fan after TBF screws up, reason why people lost money on gox....is because i have to continually cite where i got the info......

i shouldn't have to cite because YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW!

its like on the sharemarket often have people asking me about companies they already invested in  

i always reply hell if i invest in a company i even know what the directors dog had for breakfast.

you know two of the reasons i like ltc;

because warren (who've i've trolled, abuse etc on an occasion or 10), has more respect for users then all the smug pseudo banker types in btc core put together.

the LA is a group by the users for the users completely seperate from the devs, while TBA is a group of self interested would be corporate wanker types trying to control the would be banker wanker types of the btc core.

[Chef Ramsay]

Bitcoin went fro $40 to less than $2, a bigger fall than BTC.

But sometimes LTC do bigger rises than BTC.

LTC might be better if you buy just before a BTC rise, but of course it is more riskier

Most interested parties are aware of that and will continue to keep and eye on this movement when it's the right time. You know I'm keeping tabs on it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

 I think litecoin has it's uses for third world nations for spending currency due to the ultra low fee's. Right now I would invest only a bit into it ~100$.
[/quote]

OK, in a 3rd world country, why would anyone want to go through the hassle of converting their local currency to any sort of cryptocurrency in order to spend it?  Is this actually taking place somewhere?  If so, I can't imagine the practice is widespread.  Am I wrong?

[teukon]

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?

then you wont like 20:59   in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

so yeah not my idea.

This citation does not support your claim that POW was only ever designed to be short term.

In the video, Mike Hearn claims (and hopes) that one day, someone will come up with a better system.  He explain what he doesn't like about proof-of-work by observing that it is barely a rough approximation to "one person, one vote".

I find nothing objectionable here.  This is purely a statement about technological progress which promotes neither proof-of-stake nor indeed democracy.

i was replying to "Why do you get such an odd idea?" and gave a quote from just one example of a video i'd watched 10 min earlier to back up that even the core devs will backup that pow is not the future direction of bitcoin, and they have no idea what will replace it.

Here, it appears you are trying to change your claim to match the source rather than admit error.  I maintain that your original claim is not supported by the citation you provided.

With the remainder of your post (omitted), you shred your reputation for doing research.  You openly admit that your statements are routinely shot down and go on to try and shout away the concept of philosophic burden of proof.

Ignored.

[Amph]

Bitcoin went fro $40 to less than $2, a bigger fall than BTC.

But sometimes LTC do bigger rises than BTC.

LTC might be better if you buy just before a BTC rise, but of course it is more riskier

litecoin biggest rise was the one to 0.06, from 0.02, not that big to be honest, while bitcoin x20+ in 2011

[kelsey]

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?

then you wont like 20:59   in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

so yeah not my idea.

This citation does not support your claim that POW was only ever designed to be short term.

In the video, Mike Hearn claims (and hopes) that one day, someone will come up with a better system.  He explain what he doesn't like about proof-of-work by observing that it is barely a rough approximation to "one person, one vote".

I find nothing objectionable here.  This is purely a statement about technological progress which promotes neither proof-of-stake nor indeed democracy.

i was replying to "Why do you get such an odd idea?" and gave a quote from just one example of a video i'd watched 10 min earlier to back up that even the core devs will backup that pow is not the future direction of bitcoin, and they have no idea what will replace it.

Here, it appears you are trying to change your claim to match the source rather than admit error.  I maintain that your original claim is not supported by the citation you provided.

With the remainder of your post (omitted), you shred your reputation for doing research.  You openly admit that your statements are routinely shot down and go on to try and shout away the concept of philosophic burden of proof.

Ignored.

sorry no error on my part, tis stating the obvious that POW was only a short term solution, anyone who has even only done half assessed research will know that.

in fact it would help my own arguments in this thread against bitcoin core devs to say "look they want bitcoin to move away from pow wow thats so against satoshi's original plans" now wouldn't it? but its the one point i'm defending the core devs on strangely enough.

i'm not going to find and link every satoshi statement to that effect just to defend my research too you. especially when thats defending the devs i'm not a fan of.

ignore away  

[Netnox]

I can LTC already dead since a big dump long time ago
From about $50 become $1.3 only

Even BTC price from $12xx become $210
Bitcoin still used as currency unlike LTC

LTC's pump was insane. I wouldn't count out LTC just yet tho... when BTC goes 1k+ again.. do you really think that LTC isn't going to follow with a pump as well?

It might never happen again. That's why i agree with coblee, first priority is the success of Bitcoin. Without that no other Crypto will make it, but if Bitcoin goes mainstream than that's good for alts aswell. That's why i like developers of alts that also focus on getting people into Bitcoin, like Litecoin and GetGems devs.

This is GetGems dev words, we need more devs like these.

Bringing Bitcoin to the masses. This is the most important challenge the crypto-currency community is facing today. We've designed GetGems from the ground up with this goal in mind.

[cozk]

LTC/BTC is dropping each time the USD/BTC is rising. This has been going on for at least 6-8 months.

Not a good sign for LTC. Not at all.

If i had to make a call on LTC's future i'd say its going to tank.

[manfred]

This is the whole available history
https://i.imgur.com/UaU7CQs.png