Topic: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 331. (Read 1467253 times)

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 03, 2012, 08:49:44 PM

You have to keep in mind that the 21 million BTC limit was a purely experimental value. In hindsight it is way too low to be used as a world-wide currency, which is why you need a much higher limit if you intend of having one that people will use on a daily basis.

That is a whole number bias if .00000001 btc were worth $1 then those 1 btc are now $10M multiply that by 21M and you have hell of a big number more than enough to run the world on..

I think you're overestimating the general populace if you assume they're above "whole number bias".
Although, you could mask the decimal in the transaction software by simply calling 0.00000001 BTC as a whole unit of something else (like the satoshi or whatever), where you will eventually run into the issue of the lowest possible transaction, the way the dollar currency is limited to a minimum 1 cent transaction.

Let me try and work this muddle of zeros out into words.

21,000,000.00000000 can be divided into 2,100,000,000,000,000 whole units. That's 2.1 quadrillion, or 2100 trillion, or 2.1 million billion. In which case you're probably right, that seems enough to run the world on.

Even if you account for the lowest possible transaction being 1 cent instead of 1 Dollar, you now have 21 trillion individual units, each divisible into "cents".

If anything this "software mask" would paint Litecoin into a rather useless corner. And if Bitcoin institutions allow for instant transactions, the 2.5 minute blocks will do nothing better, except bloat the block chain history.

Puzzling Undecided

Is 2100 trillion really enough? If the GDP of the US was 15 Trillion dollars last year, and each of those dollars is divisible by 100 cents, that's a lot of 'units' (more zero's then I care to write).

Wikipedia says the total money supply in circulation of the world was 4 trillion in 2008 which had doubled from 2 trillion only 6 years prior (and had doubled from only 1 trillion 12 years before that). They don't mention the current estimated money in circulation, one could perhaps guess that it's up to 8 trillion depending on how the recession has panned out.

Maybe our incredibly large number won't stay so incredibly large for as long as we might think.

You cannot inflate btc like you can with money those dollars are fake made up from thin air ie. they just turned the printing presses on nothing backs them. Now you can say nothing backs btc either but one thing you can be certain of is no more than 21M of them will be produced no printing press to turn on here to get more.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: DILLIGAF on June 03, 2012, 07:39:51 PM

Quote from: EskimoBob on June 04, 2012, 02:35:57 AM

You have to keep in mind that the 21 million BTC limit was a purely experimental value. In hindsight it is way too low to be used as a world-wide currency, which is why you need a much higher limit if you intend of having one that people will use on a daily basis.

That is a whole number bias if .00000001 btc were worth $1 then those 1 btc are now $10M multiply that by 21M and you have hell of a big number more than enough to run the world on..

I think you're overestimating the general populace if you assume they're above "whole number bias".
Although, you could mask the decimal in the transaction software by simply calling 0.00000001 BTC as a whole unit of something else (like the satoshi or whatever), where you will eventually run into the issue of the lowest possible transaction, the way the dollar currency is limited to a minimum 1 cent transaction.

Let me try and work this muddle of zeros out into words.

21,000,000.00000000 can be divided into 2,100,000,000,000,000 whole units. That's 2.1 quadrillion, or 2100 trillion, or 2.1 million billion. In which case you're probably right, that seems enough to run the world on.

Even if you account for the lowest possible transaction being 1 cent instead of 1 Dollar, you now have 21 trillion individual units, each divisible into "cents".

If anything this "software mask" would paint Litecoin into a rather useless corner. And if Bitcoin institutions allow for instant transactions, the 2.5 minute blocks will do nothing better, except bloat the block chain history.

Puzzling Undecided

Is 2100 trillion really enough? If the GDP of the US was 15 Trillion dollars last year, and each of those dollars is divisible by 100 cents, that's a lot of 'units' (more zero's then I care to write).

Wikipedia says the total money supply in circulation of the world was 4 trillion in 2008 which had doubled from 2 trillion only 6 years prior (and had doubled from only 1 trillion 12 years before that). They don't mention the current estimated money in circulation, one could perhaps guess that it's up to 8 trillion depending on how the recession has panned out.

Maybe our incredibly large number won't stay so incredibly large for as long as we might think.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

I think you guys are getting worked up over a very distant "problem".
There is one at our doorstep right now, that needs immediate attention - huge tx history, we have to drag along in massive .dat files.

Please, do not start yapping about the low cost of HDD and web wallets and what not.
It takes forever to get the clean install going (new bitcoin install has become a really painful experience) and if LTC takes off, we will be at the same spot.
Sooner it gets fixed, better it is.

Agreed.

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: kano on June 04, 2012, 06:29:35 AM

Quote from: matthewh3 on June 01, 2012, 03:53:54 PM

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 01, 2012, 03:50:35 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 01, 2012, 02:42:29 PM

I get around 80KH with my CPUs to mine LTC, I think it's pretty good when you consider the alternative is idle CPU.

If your electricity is free, then yes. OTHERWISE, you're better off taking the money you'd spend on the extra electricity cost of running your CPU at 100%, and buying the LTC that way.

I agree but its very difficult to buy LTC with cash at the moment unless your going via the route of GBP>BTC>LTC.

Which ... increases the value of LTC ...

I think if MtGox and Intersango added LTC exchanges making it easier to turn "hard" cash into LTC then the value would rise.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: matthewh3 on June 01, 2012, 03:53:54 PM

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 01, 2012, 03:50:35 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 01, 2012, 02:42:29 PM

I get around 80KH with my CPUs to mine LTC, I think it's pretty good when you consider the alternative is idle CPU.

If your electricity is free, then yes. OTHERWISE, you're better off taking the money you'd spend on the extra electricity cost of running your CPU at 100%, and buying the LTC that way.

I agree but its very difficult to buy LTC with cash at the moment unless your going via the route of GBP>BTC>LTC.

Which ... increases the value of LTC ...

pooler

hero member

Activity: 842

Merit: 507

Quote from: Gabi on June 04, 2012, 05:02:36 AM

Nothing is ASIC hostile. Nothing.
Go read again the definition of ASIC please

It is my understanding that, in terms of cost-effectiveness, scrypt can be regarded as relatively ASIC-hostile.
Of course you could design a fast (relative to a desktop CPU/GPU) ASIC for scrypt, but because of the memory requirements of scrypt wouldn't it turn out to be way more expensive than a fast ASIC for, say, SHA-256?

Fuzzy

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: Gabi on June 04, 2012, 05:02:36 AM

However, GPU hostility is impossible to do with Litecoin, as that sort of change would create a whole new chain/network.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is possible to change the algorithm without restarting the chain, it just takes some coding.
The real problem would be devising a hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile and ASIC-hostile than scrypt and that is at the same time immune to cryptographic attacks.

Nothing is ASIC hostile. Nothing.
Go read again the definition of ASIC please

I think he meant Bitcoin-purpose ASIC. ie, keep Bitcoin hardware from mining LTC effectively

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Quote from: DILLIGAF on June 03, 2012, 07:39:51 PM

However, GPU hostility is impossible to do with Litecoin, as that sort of change would create a whole new chain/network.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is possible to change the algorithm without restarting the chain, it just takes some coding.
The real problem would be devising a hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile and ASIC-hostile than scrypt and that is at the same time immune to cryptographic attacks.

Nothing is ASIC hostile. Nothing.
Go read again the definition of ASIC please

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

I think you guys are getting worked up over a very distant "problem".
There is one at our doorstep right now, that needs immediate attention - huge tx history, we have to drag along in massive .dat files.

Please, do not start yapping about the low cost of HDD and web wallets and what not.
It takes forever to get the clean install going (new bitcoin install has become a really painful experience) and if LTC takes off, we will be at the same spot.
Sooner it gets fixed, better it is.

Fuzzy

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

You have to keep in mind that the 21 million BTC limit was a purely experimental value. In hindsight it is way too low to be used as a world-wide currency, which is why you need a much higher limit if you intend of having one that people will use on a daily basis.

That is a whole number bias if .00000001 btc were worth $1 then those 1 btc are now $10M multiply that by 21M and you have hell of a big number more than enough to run the world on..

I think you're overestimating the general populace if you assume they're above "whole number bias".
Although, you could mask the decimal in the transaction software by simply calling 0.00000001 BTC as a whole unit of something else (like the satoshi or whatever), where you will eventually run into the issue of the lowest possible transaction, the way the dollar currency is limited to a minimum 1 cent transaction.

Let me try and work this muddle of zeros out into words.

21,000,000.00000000 can be divided into 2,100,000,000,000,000 whole units. That's 2.1 quadrillion, or 2100 trillion, or 2.1 million billion. In which case you're probably right, that seems enough to run the world on.

Even if you account for the lowest possible transaction being 1 cent instead of 1 Dollar, you now have 21 trillion individual units, each divisible into "cents".

If anything this "software mask" would paint Litecoin into a rather useless corner. And if Bitcoin institutions allow for instant transactions, the 2.5 minute blocks will do nothing better, except bloat the block chain history.

Puzzling Undecided

DILLIGAF

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on June 03, 2012, 01:24:53 PM

You have to keep in mind that the 21 million BTC limit was a purely experimental value. In hindsight it is way too low to be used as a world-wide currency, which is why you need a much higher limit if you intend of having one that people will use on a daily basis.

That is a whole number bias if .00000001 btc were worth $1 then those 1 btc are now $10M multiply that by 21M and you have hell of a big number more than enough to run the world on..

Fuzzy

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

I still think there is a strong argument for the 'silver' to BTC 'gold'. I wouldn't be surprised if BTC ends up being so successful that the 21 million limit in coins turns out to look rather small. Yes of course it's divisible down many decimal places, but if people really end up using it for millions if not billions of transactions, people are going to have a hard time keeping track of how many 0's they have to put in their transactions.

This is exactly why LTC needs a decimal shift while it's still early. I doubt people will use BitCoins for everyday transactions once the BTC is worth $100 or so. Again, too many zeros.

If LTC had a limit of 840 million or even 8.4 billion, it could easily become a day-to-day small purchase currency. It's all about perception. I'm not going to sell my computer for 0.003 BTC, but if it were 500 LTC, that would be perceived as a fair trade. An 84 million coin limit just isn't enough to do that with.

Either another currency will come along to serve that role, or LTC will shift the decimal.

You have to keep in mind that the 21 million BTC limit was a purely experimental value. In hindsight it is way too low to be used as a world-wide currency, which is why you need a much higher limit if you intend of having one that people will use on a daily basis.

Brunic

hero member

Activity: 632

Merit: 500

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 01, 2012, 03:50:35 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 01, 2012, 02:42:29 PM

I get around 80KH with my CPUs to mine LTC, I think it's pretty good when you consider the alternative is idle CPU.

If your electricity is free, then yes. OTHERWISE, you're better off taking the money you'd spend on the extra electricity cost of running your CPU at 100%, and buying the LTC that way.

I know, but I have the choice of that:
-Waste electricity without any return.
-Use a little more electricity to get LTC in return.

I know it's not profitable right now, but at least, you get something. And maybe, one day, the LTC will get an higher value than it is right now, and get my ROI. I'm doing it considering that maybe, in 5 year from now, LTC will have more value. I try to buy low and sell high Wink

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: coblee on June 02, 2012, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: pooler on June 02, 2012, 06:45:01 AM

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 02, 2012, 05:34:34 AM

Quote from: pooler on June 02, 2012, 06:45:01 AM

However, GPU hostility is impossible to do with Litecoin, as that sort of change would create a whole new chain/network.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is possible to change the algorithm without restarting the chain, it just takes some coding.
The real problem would be devising a hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile and ASIC-hostile than scrypt and that is at the same time immune to cryptographic attacks.

There was a thread recently which concluded that this was a practical impossibility for an established network, i.e, it creates a fork in the chain.

That thread refers to a well-established network. Litecoin is nowhere as widespread as Bitcoin, and "political" issues are considerably less complicated.
A mandatory protocol upgrade would of course create a split in the blockchain, but if the transition is carefully planned (so that all the pools and the majority of users all agree on the changes and upgrade their software accordingly) I think there should be no major problem.

As I stated before, however, I don't think that's where the real problem lies.

I agree. First of all, most people are ok with Litecoin being GPU mined. I've talked to many people and that majority thinks that I should leave it be since GPU mining does not kill CPU mining like it did in Bitcoin. Secondly, I'm not aware of any algorithm that is truly GPU-hostile. I think it would be really hard (if not impossible) to come up with one. And plus, GPUs will start to have more and more memory. So even if we did come up with an algorithm that is GPU-hostile now, it might not be when next year's GPUs come out. So I think it's a losing proposition to try to fight this. I'm willing to let this play out. My guess is that Litecoin will be one generation behind Bitcoin. While Bitcoin is moving towards FPGA, Litecoin will be GPU mined, and when Bitcoin moves towards ASIC, the FPGAs will be used to mine Litecoin.

I would be okay with this as well. I still think there is a strong argument for the 'silver' to BTC 'gold'. I wouldn't be surprised if BTC ends up being so successful that the 21 million limit in coins turns out to look rather small. Yes of course it's divisible down many decimal places, but if people really end up using it for millions if not billions of transactions, people are going to have a hard time keeping track of how many 0's they have to put in their transactions.

Additionally, I think it means people can keep mining for much longer. LTC comes at a time when BTC is already much farther along. With BTC a great number of coins were mined prior to many people knowing about it and as a result it's complicated to mine now once it's really starting to hit it's stride. I posted before how 'ownership' is an important characteristic of LTC and I think it holds true still. People jumping on LTC and mining with all sorts of processors will help it greatly in the long run.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 02, 2012, 05:34:34 AM

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 02, 2012, 05:34:34 AM

However, GPU hostility is impossible to do with Litecoin, as that sort of change would create a whole new chain/network.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is possible to change the algorithm without restarting the chain, it just takes some coding.
The real problem would be devising a hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile and ASIC-hostile than scrypt and that is at the same time immune to cryptographic attacks.

There was a thread recently which concluded that this was a practical impossibility for an established network, i.e, it creates a fork in the chain.

That thread refers to a well-established network. Litecoin is nowhere as widespread as Bitcoin, and "political" issues are considerably less complicated.
A mandatory protocol upgrade would of course create a split in the blockchain, but if the transition is carefully planned (so that all the pools and the majority of users all agree on the changes and upgrade their software accordingly) I think there should be no major problem.

As I stated before, however, I don't think that's where the real problem lies.

I agree. First of all, most people are ok with Litecoin being GPU mined. I've talked to many people and that majority thinks that I should leave it be since GPU mining does not kill CPU mining like it did in Bitcoin. Secondly, I'm not aware of any algorithm that is truly GPU-hostile. I think it would be really hard (if not impossible) to come up with one. And plus, GPUs will start to have more and more memory. So even if we did come up with an algorithm that is GPU-hostile now, it might not be when next year's GPUs come out. So I think it's a losing proposition to try to fight this. I'm willing to let this play out. My guess is that Litecoin will be one generation behind Bitcoin. While Bitcoin is moving towards FPGA, Litecoin will be GPU mined, and when Bitcoin moves towards ASIC, the FPGAs will be used to mine Litecoin.

pooler

hero member

Activity: 842

Merit: 507

However, GPU hostility is impossible to do with Litecoin, as that sort of change would create a whole new chain/network.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is possible to change the algorithm without restarting the chain, it just takes some coding.
The real problem would be devising a hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile and ASIC-hostile than scrypt and that is at the same time immune to cryptographic attacks.

There was a thread recently which concluded that this was a practical impossibility for an established network, i.e, it creates a fork in the chain.

That thread refers to a well-established network. Litecoin is nowhere as widespread as Bitcoin, and "political" issues are considerably less complicated.
A mandatory protocol upgrade would of course create a split in the blockchain, but if the transition is carefully planned (so that all the pools and the majority of users all agree on the changes and upgrade their software accordingly) I think there should be no major problem.

As I stated before, however, I don't think that's where the real problem lies.

Fuzzy

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

However, GPU hostility is impossible to do with Litecoin, as that sort of change would create a whole new chain/network.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is possible to change the algorithm without restarting the chain, it just takes some coding.
The real problem would be devising a hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile and ASIC-hostile than scrypt and that is at the same time immune to cryptographic attacks.

There was a thread recently which concluded that this was a practical impossibility for an established network, i.e, it creates a fork in the chain.

pooler

hero member

Activity: 842

Merit: 507

Quote from: Fuzzy on June 01, 2012, 04:00:08 PM

However, GPU hostility is impossible to do with Litecoin, as that sort of change would create a whole new chain/network.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is possible to change the algorithm without restarting the chain, it just takes some coding.
The real problem would be devising a hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile and ASIC-hostile than scrypt and that is at the same time immune to cryptographic attacks.

Cosbycoin

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 506