Topic: All these new BitCoin clones? Your opinions? (Read 3215 times)

And what is with the litecoin? The price is now very small and a lot of litecoins will bought with less money or less bitcoins (for example from the early adopters!!).
Then the demand increase and the price increase and the effect is similar the first adopters will make a lot of profit too.

The problem of all the bitcoin systems is that everytime the system starts in a hand of less early adopters who will make a lot of profit.
Maybe some bitcoin clones have a better answer for this problem than the original bitcoin but there is no system which will have a real new  system.

Yes, 13.5m bitcoins that are currently 2,000x harder to produce, and are likely only to be harder to get as the award drops and if bitcoin increases in popularity.


Encoin wouldn't distribute currency like bitcoin. It is inflation that is controlled by market forces (not enough coins, prices rise, make more coins based on their cost to produce).


Big difference is the people control the supply, not a government mandate.


Unfixed supply of money does not equal regulated.


Yes this is fantastic for early(-ier) adopters, but it does nothing for a currency. A currency should strive to have a stable purchasing power, not strive to be an increasingly valued commodity.


The value of the metals are not increased, the demand for the metals is increased. Using these metals to back currency was a large contributing factor to a little-known thing called the Great Depression.


This is not true. As the value of BTC gets higher and higher, only a small number of coins need to be sold to make a very large profit. This "trickle in" philosophy allows the early adopters to support generation after generation of descendants while doing zilch for the economy.


And this is a relatively meaningless statistic. Most of the volume is speculation, ergo most of the volume is trading back and forth. This isn't economic activity (drugs) which caused the price to rise to USD 30.

Thank you guys for supporting of LTC

I'll just sell them for bitcoins as long as someone will give me btc for them 

Exactly.  Not saying don't mine whatever makes you coins.  Just saying the lifespan of any project with such limited "utility" is likely not very long.

My opinion?

CPU coins are useful to let the cpu mine something i can sell for bitcoins.  But nothing more. Also if their value drop to 0, they won't even be useful to buy bitcoins...

Hmm... I can´t see the problem because there are 13.5mio. bitcoins are for mining.
And yes the market iss too small for speculation and manipulation but I can´t see a advantage in for example EnCoin because the result would be similar because the Encoin will started as a unknown new currency and the first buyers would buy a lot of Encoins to profit in later time when a lot of buyers come into the market and want new Encoins.

To resolve this problem you must regulate the Encoin market and the Encoin becomes more and more to fiat money.
The character of unregulated free currency would be destroyed and I don´t believe that such bitcoin-clone will be successful with this tactic.
I mean that the speculation is good for the bitcoin because the bitcoin would be discussed very often on web and other media and it seduced a lot of new speculatores and investors to buy bitcoins for profit.
We must see that the application and acceptance of bitcoin will increase when the value of bitcoin will increase. Look for gold or silver today it will accepted much more than 10 years ago because the value of the metals are increased. And the speculations in gold or silver make it to a important theme in the media like TV ;-)

So I don´t see a problem in the early adopters of bitcoin because they can sell bitcoins and make a lot of profit only one time and more and more new bitcoins will decrease their influence ;-)
And look to mtGox on a good day the volume is higher than 100.000 BTC ;-)

I really hate discussing this issue on this board. It is impossible for me to know if you are just ignorant, or just pretending to be ignorant for the sake of bitcoin. And I'm not saying ignorant as a disparaging word, just by its dictionary definition.

It is highly unlikely that anyone "pump and dumped" bitcoin. If you care to look at the block explorer, the first 32,000 blocks (1.6 million coins) were mined at a difficulty of 1 (it is 1.5millionish today). One. This is somewhere in the range of 4-10 CPUs depending on who you ask. No matter what, the cost to produce these coins was far less than even a tenth of a cent. And those are currently over 20% of the total coins ever produced. It was closer to 30% at the price height.

IF those coins had been reasonably distributed (as in, sold) during bitcoin's popularity upswing, the price would have never gotten anywhere near 30 USD. But it did. So the reality is there was a hoard and dump. And the reality is the market is so small that it took somewhere around 100-200k coins to bring the price from $30 to $3. $150 million didn't just disappear, after all, it never existed in market depth.

So if you follow reality, a great majority of these coins are still being hoarded. There is little actual commerce being done with bitcoin, and a whole hell of a lot of market manipulation as evidenced by threads on the speculation board.


I suggest you educate yourself before attempting to educate others. Bitcoin is a zero sum game where the small number of early adopters win massive amounts, and the massive amounts of losers lose small amounts.

Hi Comrade. I read your encoin proposals.
Good luck. Wish you the best. I really do. But I'm not the least bit interested.


Not true. Those with a lot of money did a pump and dump (not sure if it was intentional) and it attracted those that want to get rich quick.
This can only be countered in a free market by more savy Bitcoin investors that don't fall for it. Those that dump a lot of dough will be the ones that loose down the road.

Through influence and education. Most do not have the patience for that, but the only alternatives are tyranny and force.

Eliminating the need for hashing power to secure the network might be one way.


My idea is spawned from detesting the moral ambiguity of bitcoin. (see sig)


That's because each of the "successful" forks are based on the same, pyramid-like system.


The problem is that it was designed this way to attract those who think they will get rich. How are you going to change it?

I think we should all put our time & energy toward making bitcoin work instead of diluting the effort chasing dozens of other dreams.

I completely support alternate currencies and their experimentation.
I wish them luck and I do follow their developments from time to time out of curiosity.
But I don't ever see any of them making such a huge stride in decentralized crypto currency development to steal any of Bitcoin's market share.

Each flavor is spawned from someone's greed, fear, curiosity, pride and list of other emotions.
The majority of the people that invest time and money into someone else's crypto-currency shceme are usually in lottery mode.
They will mine that currency until another becomes more lucrative and then bail.

Most of my time is invested in Bitcoin and all of my fiat for crypto-currecy investing goes to Bitcoin.
All my mining hardware is dedicated to bitcoin. Not looking to become rich or make a quick buck, but I just want to add solid support to a technology that I firmly believe will continue to work for the long run. I do not gauge its success on its price - it is already a huge success. The more people that become a part of this project that realize currency is a tool not a "get rich scheme" the more successful it will be.

Agreed Bitcoin isn't perfect however my point was simply the word inevitability.  There is no inevitability that something will co-exist or replace Bitcoin.

If we could do Bitcoin all over again there are a lot of things which could be implemented all over again but to do it all over again would be scrapping all the existing structure for one that most likely would have less critical mass.

The confirmation issue is a non-issue for most transactions.  Small value transactions would be very difficult to double spend in the real world where timing attacks are far more complex.  Someone like McDonalds would likely loose far less to attempted double spends than they do everyday from CC fraud/chargebacks.

Well, its not like bitcoin has no issues, perceived or real. 3 spring to mind:
- slow confirmations. IMO, this was a design flaw, 10 minutes for a single confirmation makes it so much harder to use at point of sale etc.
- no built-in inflation after x years. opinions vary whether thats actually good or bad, but both opinions are popular and have valid arguments
- volatility due to excessive speculation

For all 3 issues there are alt chains or idea's how to tackle them. Idea's that may or may not succeed, mind you, but that depend on a fork and if they do succeed in overcoming them, they at least have the potential to make them more desirable than bitcoin. I think thats a good thing. I believe in competition.

So, who want to buy litecoins from me?

There is no inevitability.  If something comes along that offers a better value to consumer or merchant then it may gain significant marketshare, maybe even co-existing or replacing bitcoin.

However Bitcoin has significant utility.  Sure adoption is nearly non-existent compared to fiat currencies but is 1000x that any alt-chain.  So the question becomes other than a hope to mine, pump, and pawn it off on the last speculator holding the bag what real value to alt-chains provide.

It may be possible that Bitcoin utility continues to improve and remains continually ahead of competitors. Look at ebay for example.  Ebay owns ~99%? of online auction marketplace.  Most people ONLY check ebay.  They don't feel disadvantages by not checking alt-bay.  The own "weakness" ebay may have is high fees but there is no reason alt-coins would have a lower fee structure than bitcoin.

Sometimes "good enough" is good enough to become the dominant standard. 

In my opinion the GPU mining is important for the bitcoin because the influence of clustercomputer are not decisively.

So google oder some big banks could use their cluster to mine a significant part of bitcoins.
With the prefered GPU mining the supercluster don´t have the big influence.

Therefore I prefer the GPU dominating mining system and i will not support Litecoin and I think the Litecoin will fading when the bitcoin become more stability or going up again.

Free money?
And what about electricity? What about rigs people bought especially to "support" bitcoin?

With my NVIDIA cards my Bitcoin mining is useless but I can support Litecoin just fine with my 4+4+1+1 Cores and Ubuntu ;-)

But, the question is: When difficulty increases and its time for mining for commission how much it will be in order to preserve hashrate (ie. miners)?

the problem with people saying bitcoin is dieing is that they are looking at it as a means of making money. bitcoin was not designed as something to be mined forever and constantly make money from it in that way. it is meant to be a means of payment for goods and services. when looking at bitcoin and saying that the price has dropped and this means its dieing, all that you are seeing is that it is making less sense to just mine and dump. the core concept of bitcoin is still there. you can still exchange your coins for money and the other way around. some places accept coins directly, and this is more what bitcoin is for.


Alt coins who spring up take people away from bitcoins, but generally these people are the ones looking to grab a bunch of coins really fast and then dump them for as much money as they can get. these tend to be people who don't really support bitcoin to start with. they are more so here to make free money.

Indeed. I dont know why people are so hostile to alternative chains (closed source implementations aside, thats obvious something you should avoid).

I like litecoin. Particularly the fast confirmations is actually a huge benefit.  No one should be under any illusions of it overtaking bitcoin, but alternative chains are great testing grounds, and hey, if bitcoin can make it to the mainstream one day, then Im sure some alternatives can too. Its trivial to exchange one currency for the other.  If its true there can only be one currency, then it will be fiat currency. I dont think its true, but time will tell

The winner will be the one with a solid financial backing and a reliable, though I'm 100% sure it won't be solidcoin.

The destruction of those bitcoins recently may have given the price a temporary boost due to scarcity, it underlies serious problems with bitcoins themselves that could eventually bring the price back down. So, if someone could, if it's not too much trouble, design a client faster and more reliable than the standard bitcoin client, they might be able to come out ahead.