Alt Chains are the future

[smoothie]

Disclaimer: At the time writing this I own 0 LTC and only BTC.

Bitcoin's success is due to its agreement between many people that it is "money". More so free-market money.

Litecoin and maybe namecoin (given more adoption) can be just as successful in terms of it being free-market money.

This is key. The free markets must choose it to be money. Bitcoin has done this in a small way in terms of the overall world.

Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

As you can see I have all BTC at the moment. So I'm not cheering on LTC or NMC in any way shape or form, just giving the benefit of the doubt that the free markets could choose it too to be a medium of exchange.

Time will tell..

 

[1714820357]

1714820357

[1714820357]

1714820357

[Greedi]

Disclaimer: At the time writing this I own 0 LTC and only BTC.

Bitcoin's success is due to its agreement between many people that it is "money". More so free-market money.

Litecoin and maybe namecoin (given more adoption) can be just as successful in terms of it being free-market money.

This is key. The free markets must choose it to be money. Bitcoin has done this in a small way in terms of the overall world.

Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

As you can see I have all BTC at the moment. So I'm not cheering on LTC or NMC in any way shape or form, just giving the benefit of the doubt that the free markets could choose it too to be a medium of exchange.

Time will tell..

 

only one thing to say

+1

[wachtwoord]

It might very well be something different than BTC that wins in the end (although not likely) but I want to be it wouldn't bet it won't be LTC as it's just a copy of BTC with a weird memory restriction to try and make mining more difficult on GPUs. Maybe someone will think of an actual improvement which cannot be incorporated into Bitcoin.

[dree12]

The freemarket has chosen.  Look at the "market cap" (I hate that incorrect term) of LTC vs BTC.

And I'll lay dollars to donuts that at their respective stages of development LTC is worth more than BTC was this far into their time existing. I'm sure you could sell 10,000 LTC right now and buy more than a couple of pizzas...

I'm not sure why you think this is a valid argument. Solidcoin was worth around half a dollar each once, but is merely a relic of the past now. IxCoin gained much quicker adoption than Bitcoin when it launched, but is laughable in adoption now. Why wouldn't LiteCoin suffer the same trajectory?

[smoothie]

The freemarket has chosen.  Look at the "market cap" (I hate that incorrect term) of LTC vs BTC.

You should probably stop thinking in the short term. Let's revisit this discussion in 1 year. Then we get a better take on where things are headed for LTC and BTC>

[Stephen Gornick]

Litecoin and maybe namecoin (given more adoption) can be just as successful in terms of it being free-market money.

This is key. The free markets must choose it to be money. Bitcoin has done this in a small way in terms of the overall world.

Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

There is more to come from Bitcoin in terms of capabilities (easier to use multi-party signatures, smart contracts, etc.) but Bitcoin will always have some shortcomings including requirements for anonymity, transaction fees, microtransactions (volume limits), security, reversability (with bitcoin, this is the confirmation time), etc.

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Ideal_Properties_of_Digital_Commodities

The solutions that could fill in the blanks where needed don't necessarily need to be alternate currencies.  Redeemable codes issued by the exchanges are one (relatively poor) approach.    A decentralized proof-of-work blockchain currency will likely have most of the same shortcomings as bitcoin.

Open Transactions (OT) is very well suited to be one of the technologies that becomes successful at filling in the gaps -- better privacy (blinding), instant transactions with no confirmation delay, low or no fees, microtransactions, transparency into an asset's "backing" -- once auditing module is developed, etc.)

Because OT doesn't offer the prospect of direct financial gain to speculators it doesn't get hardly anywhere near as much attention as it should,  There are some bitcoiners who are helping to develop, build, test, operate and improve OT technology.  I would bet that OT has more impact on cryptocurrencies in the next year to five than LTC ever will.

Now I'm not saying there's no place for LTC, and after GPU miners give up on BTC mining following the one-two punch from the block reward drop and the arrival of FPGA clusters and ASICs, hobbyist mining operators will probably switch to LTC mining -- at least those who aren't paying hardly anything for electricity.  But without an alt improving much over bitcoin other than how it can be mined by a wider subset of the general population then I don't see it following Bitcoin's path.  I see a lot of speculation hoping it will, but that's not the same thing.

[smoothie]

Litecoin and maybe namecoin (given more adoption) can be just as successful in terms of it being free-market money.

This is key. The free markets must choose it to be money. Bitcoin has done this in a small way in terms of the overall world.

Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

There is more to come from Bitcoin in terms of capabilities (easier to use multi-party signatures, smart contracts, etc.) but Bitcoin will always have some shortcomings including requirements for anonymity, transaction fees, microtransactions (volume limits), security, reversability (with bitcoin, this is the confirmation time), etc.

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Ideal_Properties_of_Digital_Commodities

The solutions that could fill in the blanks where needed don't necessarily need to be alternate currencies.  Redeemable codes issued by the exchanges are one (relatively poor) approach.    A decentralized proof-of-work blockchain currency will likely have most of the same shortcomings as bitcoin.

Open Transactions (OT) is very well suited to be one of the technologies that becomes successful at filling in the gaps -- better privacy (blinding), instant transactions with no confirmation delay, low or no fees, microtransactions, transparency into an asset's "backing" -- once auditing module is developed, etc.)

Because OT doesn't offer the prospect of direct financial gain to speculators it doesn't get hardly anywhere near as much attention as it should,  There are some bitcoiners who are helping to develop, build, test, operate and improve OT technology.  I would bet that OT has more impact on cryptocurrencies in the next year to five than LTC ever will.

Now I'm not saying there's no place for LTC, and after GPU miners give up on BTC mining following the one-two punch from the block reward drop and the arrival of FPGA clusters and ASICs, hobbyist mining operators will probably switch to LTC mining -- at least those who aren't paying hardly anything for electricity.  But without an alt improving much over bitcoin other than how it can be mined by a wider subset of the general population then I don't see it following Bitcoin's path.  I see a lot of speculation hoping it will, but that's not the same thing.

You bring up some good points.

+1

[markm]

Open Transactions (OT) is very well suited to be one of the technologies that becomes successful at filling in the gaps -- better privacy (blinding), instant transactions with no confirmation delay, low or no fees, microtransactions, transparency into an asset's "backing" -- once auditing module is developed, etc.)

Because OT doesn't offer the prospect of direct financial gain to speculators it doesn't get hardly anywhere near as much attention as it should,  There are some bitcoiners who are helping to develop, build, test, operate and improve OT technology.  I would bet that OT has more impact on cryptocurrencies in the next year to five than LTC ever will.

Actually, speculators have been doing very well using Open Transactions. Moving currencies from a blockchain format vulnerable to superior hashing power attacks to an Open Transactions server turns out to have provided all the benefits of limited amount issued currencies without the problems of trying to back coins minted by people who have no intention of backing them and without the problem of attacks from various zealots who enjoy attacking alternative currencies.

-MarkM-

EDIT: Just as an initial sketch toward putting some stats into HTML form see http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/inlitecoins.html

EDIT2: Same data expressed in terms of DeVCoins: http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/indevcoins.html

[Transisto]

Disclaimer: At the time writing this I own 0 LTC and only BTC.

Bitcoin's success is due to its agreement between many people that it is "money". More so free-market money.

Litecoin and maybe namecoin (given more adoption) can be just as successful in terms of it being free-market money.

This is key. The free markets must choose it to be money. Bitcoin has done this in a small way in terms of the overall world.

Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

As you can see I have all BTC at the moment. So I'm not cheering on LTC or NMC in any way shape or form, just giving the benefit of the doubt that the free markets could choose it too to be a medium of exchange.

Time will tell..

 

The point being ?

...
Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.
...

Is that all ??
You provide no argument for BTC, NMC or LTC,   WHY oh WHY these posts ?

[goodlord666]

Love y'all!


The point being?     Love y'all!

[organofcorti]

Look at the "market cap" (I hate that incorrect term) ...

Me too. Try "Fiat cap." instead.

[smoothie]

Disclaimer: At the time writing this I own 0 LTC and only BTC.

Bitcoin's success is due to its agreement between many people that it is "money". More so free-market money.

Litecoin and maybe namecoin (given more adoption) can be just as successful in terms of it being free-market money.

This is key. The free markets must choose it to be money. Bitcoin has done this in a small way in terms of the overall world.

Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

As you can see I have all BTC at the moment. So I'm not cheering on LTC or NMC in any way shape or form, just giving the benefit of the doubt that the free markets could choose it too to be a medium of exchange.

Time will tell..

 

I left that part for you. Let's hear it
The point being ?

...
Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.
...

Is that all ??
You provide no argument for BTC, NMC or LTC,   WHY oh WHY these posts ?

[tatsuchan]

Disclaimer: At the time writing this I own 0 LTC and only BTC.

Bitcoin's success is due to its agreement between many people that it is "money". More so free-market money.

Litecoin and maybe namecoin (given more adoption) can be just as successful in terms of it being free-market money.

This is key. The free markets must choose it to be money. Bitcoin has done this in a small way in terms of the overall world.

Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

As you can see I have all BTC at the moment. So I'm not cheering on LTC or NMC in any way shape or form, just giving the benefit of the doubt that the free markets could choose it too to be a medium of exchange.

Time will tell..

 

The point being ?

...
Don't be closed minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies.
...

Is that all ??
You provide no argument for BTC, NMC or LTC,   WHY oh WHY these posts ?

[muqali]

I don't know any numbers, but I'm curious how much alt currencies are used to launder BTC used in illicit activities? I mean I'm merged mining several and someone keeps trading BTC for them on the exchanges. I surely wouldn't give up BTC for anything other than maybe LTC, and even then it'd only be a small fraction of my total BTC.

Alt currencies, for me, are a I'll have what I mine, keep a small reserve in case it goes up in value, trade the rest for BTC.

[420]

Only thing is if LTC or NMC were more secure somehow or an INTERFACE were made that is more user friendly as that is thats holding back bitcoins

[muqali]

Only thing is if LTC or NMC were more secure somehow or an INTERFACE were made that is more user friendly as that is thats holding back bitcoins

While I don't know of an armory style client for LTC, their client mirrors the BTC reference client.

[bitcool]

Alt Chains may be the future

FTFY.

"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future"  

[dree12]

Alt Chains are not the future

FTFY.

"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future"  

FTFY.

Alt Chains refers to a group of cryptocurrencies excluding Bitcoin, while the future refers to a timeframe. Therefore, Alt Chains are distinct from the future.

[goxed]

I think free market may choose currencies with Proof of Work that can be done on CPU /GPU / FPGA based computers, because minor tweaking in the crypto algorithm will not entail new hardware (read ASIC) investments and would not make a whole generation of devices worthless.

[Stephen Gornick]

I think free market may choose currencies with Proof of Work that can be done on CPU /GPU / FPGA based computers, because minor tweaking in the crypto algorithm will not entail new hardware (read ASIC) investments and would not make a whole generation of devices worthless.

Remind me again why the free market that determines which currency to use gives one iota to whether or not a whole generation of other people's devices are made worthless?

[goxed]

I think free market may choose currencies with Proof of Work that can be done on CPU /GPU / FPGA based computers, because minor tweaking in the crypto algorithm will not entail new hardware (read ASIC) investments and would not make a whole generation of devices worthless.

Remind me again why the free market that determines which currency to use gives one iota to whether or not a whole generation of other people's devices are made worthless?

Free market likes competition. Hardening (ASIC) lowers competition and thus innovation IMO.

[Bitcoin Oz]

If ASIC mining starts and theres a need to fork the chain or change the algorythm I can see ASIC miners refusing to do so because that will destroy their investment. We might be stuck on an insecure chain through sheer weight of numbers.

[Stephen Gornick]

If ASIC mining starts and theres a need to fork the chain or change the algorythm I can see ASIC miners refusing to do so because that will destroy their investment. We might be stuck on an insecure chain through sheer weight of numbers.

Good point, but regressing to FPGA and/or GPU which are already plentiful, would be a method essentially still available, just that it might be considered on stand-by.

[Insu Dra]

If ASIC mining starts and theres a need to fork the chain or change the algorythm I can see ASIC miners refusing to do so because that will destroy their investment. We might be stuck on an insecure chain through sheer weight of numbers.

+1, ASIC is like hard coding your variables, it's a bad idea ...
The way forward in my mind: Merged mining alt chains, with specialized market segments for different chains.

[ElectricMucus]

Quite serious, was switching the encryption algorithm on bitcoin itself ever really an option? Confidence would be lost regardless and "the death of bitcoin" would be announced instantly.
Alright we've almost been there during last years selloff, but this would be something entire different not impatient early adopters eager to cash out...



I wouldn't even say that "alt-chains" are the future, but more like the technology behind bitcoin. It has to evolve in order to be noteworthy but if that would be another cryptocurrency or bitcoin itself is to early to say. That depends if crucial improvements can be made ontop of the existing blockchain or not. A better cryptocurrency might use some different concept which facilitates the same thing as bitcoin/current alt chains do for non-forgeable transactions.

[ElectricMucus]

Quite serious, was switching the encryption algorithm on bitcoin itself ever really an option? Confidence would be lost regardless and "the death of bitcoin" would be announced instantly.

Why?  Of course a change in encryption protocol is possible.  Most cryptographic flaws takes years (or decades) to develop from a theoretical limited scope vulnerability to one which can be economically exploited.  The bitcoin protocol can be extended to support new encryption algorithms.  For example if a flaw in ECDSA was found a new public/private keypair algorithm could be used.  Users would need to update their clients (which would generate "new" addresses) and the client could simply "spend" funds from the old vulnerable addresses to the new higher security addresses.

On a long enough timeline such evolutions are a statistical certainty.  The idea that anytime a cryptographic flaw is found the entire system dies (and all users lose all stored wealth) is well silly.  If true then no cryptocurrency is the future.  No set of users are going to accept that a periodic "reset" is just how things are done.

From a technical perspective yes. But that would depend on the severity of the flaw.
I am speaking more of the social aspect such news would have, all the hype and stuff. You know all the people announcing critical mass after a few major news outlets picked it up would be equally eager to spread any FUD once it its us. I might be wrong, but just lets hope that doesn't happen in the next decade or so in the first place

[420]

whats the problem at hand here? the ever increasing size of the block chain? can't we just force internet bandwidth and speed to catch up to the needs of the bitcoin network

[markm]

Well bear in mind the attacks on alt chains have forced many to avoid actually going public in altchain format until they have enough transaction volume to get enough hashing power to protect them. That unfortunately has kind of slowed down experimentation lately.

-MarkM-

[bitcool]

Quite serious, was switching the encryption algorithm on bitcoin itself ever really an option? Confidence would be lost regardless and "the death of bitcoin" would be announced instantly.

Why?  Of course a change in encryption protocol is possible.  Most cryptographic flaws takes years (or decades) to develop from a theoretical limited scope vulnerability to one which can be economically exploited.  The bitcoin protocol can be extended to support new encryption algorithms.  For example if a flaw in ECDSA was found a new public/private keypair algorithm could be used.  Users would need to update their clients (which would generate "new" addresses) and the client could simply "spend" funds from the old vulnerable addresses to the new higher security addresses.

On a long enough timeline such evolutions are a statistical certainty.  The idea that anytime a cryptographic flaw is found the entire system dies (and all users lose all stored wealth) is well silly.  If true then no cryptocurrency is the future.  No set of users are going to accept that a periodic "reset" is just how things are done.

MD5 and SHA-1 were once considered secure but later found vulnerable to collision attack; The fact that it took years from finding their weakness to developing exploiting techniques doesn't guarantee the same in the future. 

If Bitcoin becomes a multi-billion dollar or multi-trillion dollar economy, there will be HUGE incentive for keeping such discovery secretive until successful exploitation can be achieved. If this to happen, the result will be catastrophic.

SHA-2 family algorithm are considered safe now, but SHA-3 standard is also being developed. Ideally there should be more than one hashing methods being used, so even a successful attack on one algorithm will not be able to compromise system's integrity.

[bitcool]

If Bitcoin becomes a multi-billion dollar or multi-trillion dollar economy, there will be HUGE incentive for keeping such discovery secretive until successful exploitation can be achieved. If this to happen, the result will be catastrophic.

SHA-2 is ALREADY used in multi-billion industries.  It forms the backbone for secure communication.  Everything from ATM networks, to VPN to nuclear launch codes use SHA-2.   This is why it is so extensively researched.  While a flaw may be found in the future over a decade of research has turned up nothing except some academic proofs on reduced round variants of SHA-2.   The idea it would go from an NSA aproved algorithm (part of Suite B) certified to for use on networks handling Top Secret material to blown wide open overnight is highly highly highly implausible.  

True. SHA-2 is already being USED in multi-billion dollar industries. However, these "USE" have various degrees of reliance on SHA-2. None of that is as pure and extreme as Bitcoin.

Suppose a ATM/VPN communication network is compromised, be it a leaked private key or SHA-2 vulnerability, most likely there will be other layer of controls to mitigate the damage, worst come to worst, there will be human intervention come into play (e.g. unplug the cable, reverse transaction, law enforcement, etc) . Should this happen to Bitcoin, it will be the end of the story.

[bitcool]

Given the plausible connection between Facebook and CIA, it makes you wonder whether this data center 

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/facebook-plans-sub-arctic-data-center/10013

is something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra

[ElectricMucus]

Given the plausible connection between Facebook and CIA, it makes you wonder whether this data center 

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/facebook-plans-sub-arctic-data-center/10013

is something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra

Unlikely.

I mean it is strongly suspicable it be something else than hosting facebook webservers (the notion that they would require such large amounts of space is ridiculous)
But also there would be a much easier way to do it, a single warehouse could probably host enough hashing power using nothing but cell asics.

[Etlase2]

Ideally there should be more than one hashing methods being used, so even a successful attack on one algorithm will not be able to compromise system's integrity.

There is.  SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160

RIPEMD-160 has little bearing on the security of the network. It doesn't back up SHA-2 in any way. If something went wrong with RIPEMD-160, everyone could instead use the regular public addresses. If something went wrong with SHA-2, I doubt it would even affect the network unless it was something very major. Sure, maybe you can get a collision with a block, but how will you ever get it to have useful data that somehow advantages you and/or DoSes the network? Maybe there is a way, I dunno.

[420]

Given the plausible connection between Facebook and CIA, it makes you wonder whether this data center 

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/facebook-plans-sub-arctic-data-center/10013

is something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra

UTAH DATA CENTER

[Insu Dra]

I think free market may choose currencies with Proof of Work that can be done on CPU /GPU / FPGA based computers, because minor tweaking in the crypto algorithm will not entail new hardware (read ASIC) investments and would not make a whole generation of devices worthless.

Remind me again why the free market that determines which currency to use gives one iota to whether or not a whole generation of other people's devices are made worthless?

"Big Money > Free Market" ... I think our current "trow a way" consumption is the best proof of that statement, no body really wants it yet most people still facilitate it.

I know most of us are 'bitcoin' fans, but we should be looking beyond that. So my advice would be to stop looking at bitcoins as 'the system' we are using and start looking at 'Crypto-Currencies' as the road to the future.

No single chain will be 'the future', No single hashing method will be 'the future', diversity is the key to survival in almost every aspect of life. Bitcoin or currencies in general are no different, the more diverse a system gets the more resilient it becomes to attacks and/or other events.

It's only been +-40 years sins we took away most of the diversity and flexibility from the global currency systems, look at whats happening now, the whole world is in crisis! Consolidation and Globalization where offered as a solution to local problems and it has failed us (The People). The problems we had with old systems did not go away, they consolidated and globalized along with the currencies.

Diversity and Flexibility are the best weapons we have ...

Again, this is also why I don't look at asci as a step forward for the bitcoin blockchain, but I see it as a thread to its long term survival. Making it less flexible and allot easier to be co-opted in to existing power structures. As result I have to agree even more with opp "alt chains" (plural) are the future, unless you want the status quo to stay or you are speculating on btc to become +1k usd per coin.

I thought about a new topic but mhe, Down below is a good break down of what I believe to be the way forward for 'Crypto-' currencies in genral, maybe someone with better English skills will make that topic someday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZGjF1aJhM

[420]

wow breached $13 with no problemo