Topic: Anyone Thinking Of Dumping Bitcoin In Favour of Litecoin? - page 2. (Read 5524 times)

Quote from: mr_random on April 02, 2013, 01:23:59 PM

Quote from: tgsrge on April 02, 2013, 06:02:10 PM

I suspect MTGOX is accepting LTC for the same reason, not because it has any inherit advantage over BTC.

Mtgox is accepting them because they are currently missing out on a 0.6% fee of millions of litecoins that are traded daily. They are a business and they care about making money... at the moment btc-e is making tens of thousands of dollars per day from these litecoins, and they are still small.

MTGOX is the primary exchange for new investors. Adding LTC, NMC, NVC, IXC, etc., will just make BTC look cheap and reinforce the notion that we should all just wait and see which one will be the best.

Why shouldn't we do just that?

Bitcoin is not necessarily the best, just the first.

Absolutely. Let the market decide. Just don't be surprised when LTC2, LTC3, LTC4, etc do better than LTC.

Quote from: cbeast on April 02, 2013, 05:48:45 PM

That's only because it takes advantage of the typical PC configuration. Currently, most people are already running LTC on GPUs. When prople start using cloud computing, where will your network power come from? ASICs are made specifically for Bitcoin and will evolve seperately from personal devices. LTC may one day have unique hardware, but it will then be just a BTC imitator.

yes, please, go ahead and speed up scrypt by a factor of 1000 Roll Eyes

You missed my point. Try running scrypt in an IPAD or Chromebook. Nobody will have multithreading CPUs anymore with loads of memory.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

I wouldn't dump Bitcoin or Litecoin. But I am dumping the fiat for both Grin

flound1129

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

www.multipool.us

Quote from: mr_random on April 02, 2013, 01:23:59 PM

Quote from: mr_random on April 02, 2013, 01:16:06 PM

I suspect MTGOX is accepting LTC for the same reason, not because it has any inherit advantage over BTC.

Mtgox is accepting them because they are currently missing out on a 0.6% fee of millions of litecoins that are traded daily. They are a business and they care about making money... at the moment btc-e is making tens of thousands of dollars per day from these litecoins, and they are still small.

MTGOX is the primary exchange for new investors. Adding LTC, NMC, NVC, IXC, etc., will just make BTC look cheap and reinforce the notion that we should all just wait and see which one will be the best.

Why shouldn't we do just that?

Bitcoin is not necessarily the best, just the first.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

No you misunderstand and didn't read the link. If someone spends 10k on a Scrypt Asic it won't give them a 100 times performance boost over someone rigging together 10k's worth of top graphics cards.

Some performance boost will be gained but the algorithm was specifically designed so a government entity for example couldn't crack a Scrypt hashed password by simply throwing more money at the hardware because it will become exponentially more expensive. Again, read the paper it's all in there.

It may have been designed that way but then the creators crippled it by using parameters which make is ~14,000x less memory hard then the default settings. An Litecoin ASIC is more than possible. The value of mining will need to be much higher but that was also true of Bitcoin. Nobody was talking BTC ASICs when the Bitcoin exchange rate was $3 either.

tgsrge

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: cbeast on April 02, 2013, 05:48:45 PM

That's only because it takes advantage of the typical PC configuration. Currently, most people are already running LTC on GPUs. When prople start using cloud computing, where will your network power come from? ASICs are made specifically for Bitcoin and will evolve seperately from personal devices. LTC may one day have unique hardware, but it will then be just a BTC imitator.

yes, please, go ahead and speed up scrypt by a factor of 1000 Roll Eyes

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1010

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: coblee on April 02, 2013, 03:12:08 PM

Quote from: cbeast on April 02, 2013, 02:27:08 PM

Quote from: coblee on April 02, 2013, 02:16:38 PM

Quote from: cbeast on April 02, 2013, 02:27:08 PM

Increased hash rate == increased network security.

Also, litecoin is certainly not at all immune to ASIC.

I don't agree that "Increased hash rate == increased network security". When ASIC bitcoin mining is widely available, if you have the same number of people mining, the network won't be more secure just because the hashrate is higher. It's all about how much $ it takes for an attacker to come up with enough hashrate to 51% the network. ASICs might eventually increase the network hashrate 50x but that does not mean the network is 50x more secure if it costs the same amount of money for someone to successfully attack the network.

Take for example, if someone found a way to optimize the miner software to be 10x better hashrate and it works on CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs. Then all of the sudden, the next day EVERYONE uses the new miner software and the network hashrate jumps from 50 thahs/s to 500 thash/s. Is the network now ten times more secure?

If that strawman is the best example you can come up with to play devil's advocate, then no. But do you really think that a network composed of <1% of the global GPUs is invulnerable to a virus attack? Bitcoin was nearly attacked this way, but the perps instead decided to profit. Maybe LTC will not be so lucky.

Where did I say Litecoin is invulnerable to attacks? If huge botnet that uses CPU and GPU can successfully attack Litecoin. But botnet operators likely just want to make money, so as like Bitcoin, they will just add to the hashrate and help secure Litecoin.

That may be true. All I'm saying is that getting a lot of CPUs and GPUs together to attack LTCs 4.7 GH/s is going to be easier than going up against BTCs 54 TH/s

Don't forget that mining litecoin with GPUs is about 1000x different in speed. So 4.7 ghash/s network hashrate of Litecoin is about equivalent to 4.7 thash/s network hashrate of Bitcoin. It's still much smaller, but not as small as the numbers make it seem like.

That's only because it takes advantage of the typical PC configuration. Currently, most people are already running LTC on GPUs. When prople start using cloud computing, where will your network power come from? ASICs are made specifically for Bitcoin and will evolve seperately from personal devices. LTC may one day have unique hardware, but it will then be just a BTC imitator.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1350

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: coblee on April 02, 2013, 02:16:38 PM

Quote from: coblee on April 02, 2013, 02:16:38 PM

Increased hash rate == increased network security.

Also, litecoin is certainly not at all immune to ASIC.

I don't agree that "Increased hash rate == increased network security". When ASIC bitcoin mining is widely available, if you have the same number of people mining, the network won't be more secure just because the hashrate is higher. It's all about how much $ it takes for an attacker to come up with enough hashrate to 51% the network. ASICs might eventually increase the network hashrate 50x but that does not mean the network is 50x more secure if it costs the same amount of money for someone to successfully attack the network.

Take for example, if someone found a way to optimize the miner software to be 10x better hashrate and it works on CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs. Then all of the sudden, the next day EVERYONE uses the new miner software and the network hashrate jumps from 50 thahs/s to 500 thash/s. Is the network now ten times more secure?

If that strawman is the best example you can come up with to play devil's advocate, then no. But do you really think that a network composed of <1% of the global GPUs is invulnerable to a virus attack? Bitcoin was nearly attacked this way, but the perps instead decided to profit. Maybe LTC will not be so lucky.

Where did I say Litecoin is invulnerable to attacks? If huge botnet that uses CPU and GPU can successfully attack Litecoin. But botnet operators likely just want to make money, so as like Bitcoin, they will just add to the hashrate and help secure Litecoin.

That may be true. All I'm saying is that getting a lot of CPUs and GPUs together to attack LTCs 4.7 GH/s is going to be easier than going up against BTCs 54 TH/s

Don't forget that mining litecoin with GPUs is about 1000x different in speed. So 4.7 ghash/s network hashrate of Litecoin is about equivalent to 4.7 thash/s network hashrate of Bitcoin. It's still much smaller, but not as small as the numbers make it seem like.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1010

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Increased hash rate == increased network security.

Also, litecoin is certainly not at all immune to ASIC.

I don't agree that "Increased hash rate == increased network security". When ASIC bitcoin mining is widely available, if you have the same number of people mining, the network won't be more secure just because the hashrate is higher. It's all about how much $ it takes for an attacker to come up with enough hashrate to 51% the network. ASICs might eventually increase the network hashrate 50x but that does not mean the network is 50x more secure if it costs the same amount of money for someone to successfully attack the network.

Take for example, if someone found a way to optimize the miner software to be 10x better hashrate and it works on CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs. Then all of the sudden, the next day EVERYONE uses the new miner software and the network hashrate jumps from 50 thahs/s to 500 thash/s. Is the network now ten times more secure?

If that strawman is the best example you can come up with to play devil's advocate, then no. But do you really think that a network composed of <1% of the global GPUs is invulnerable to a virus attack? Bitcoin was nearly attacked this way, but the perps instead decided to profit. Maybe LTC will not be so lucky.

Where did I say Litecoin is invulnerable to attacks? If huge botnet that uses CPU and GPU can successfully attack Litecoin. But botnet operators likely just want to make money, so as like Bitcoin, they will just add to the hashrate and help secure Litecoin.

That may be true. All I'm saying is that getting a lot of CPUs and GPUs together to attack LTCs 4.7 GH/s is going to be easier than going up against BTCs 54 TH/s

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1350

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Increased hash rate == increased network security.

Also, litecoin is certainly not at all immune to ASIC.

I don't agree that "Increased hash rate == increased network security". When ASIC bitcoin mining is widely available, if you have the same number of people mining, the network won't be more secure just because the hashrate is higher. It's all about how much $ it takes for an attacker to come up with enough hashrate to 51% the network. ASICs might eventually increase the network hashrate 50x but that does not mean the network is 50x more secure if it costs the same amount of money for someone to successfully attack the network.

Take for example, if someone found a way to optimize the miner software to be 10x better hashrate and it works on CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs. Then all of the sudden, the next day EVERYONE uses the new miner software and the network hashrate jumps from 50 thahs/s to 500 thash/s. Is the network now ten times more secure?

If that strawman is the best example you can come up with to play devil's advocate, then no. But do you really think that a network composed of <1% of the global GPUs is invulnerable to a virus attack? Bitcoin was nearly attacked this way, but the perps instead decided to profit. Maybe LTC will not be so lucky.

Where did I say Litecoin is invulnerable to attacks? If huge botnet that uses CPU and GPU can successfully attack Litecoin. But botnet operators likely just want to make money, so as like Bitcoin, they will just add to the hashrate and help secure Litecoin.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1010

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Increased hash rate == increased network security.

Also, litecoin is certainly not at all immune to ASIC.

I don't agree that "Increased hash rate == increased network security". When ASIC bitcoin mining is widely available, if you have the same number of people mining, the network won't be more secure just because the hashrate is higher. It's all about how much $ it takes for an attacker to come up with enough hashrate to 51% the network. ASICs might eventually increase the network hashrate 50x but that does not mean the network is 50x more secure if it costs the same amount of money for someone to successfully attack the network.

Take for example, if someone found a way to optimize the miner software to be 10x better hashrate and it works on CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs. Then all of the sudden, the next day EVERYONE uses the new miner software and the network hashrate jumps from 50 thahs/s to 500 thash/s. Is the network now ten times more secure?

If that strawman is the best example you can come up with to play devil's advocate, then no. But do you really think that a network composed of <1% of the global GPUs is invulnerable to a virus attack? Bitcoin was nearly attacked this way, but the perps instead decided to profit. Maybe LTC will not be so lucky.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1350

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: mr_random on April 02, 2013, 01:39:15 PM

Increased hash rate == increased network security.

Also, litecoin is certainly not at all immune to ASIC.

Litecoin is not immune to ASICs but ASICs won't give a hashrate boost on mining Litecoins as much as it does for Bitcoins. You are right, as Litecoin price goes up, ASIC litecoin miners will inevitably come out when it becomes profitable.

I don't agree that "Increased hash rate == increased network security". When ASIC bitcoin mining is widely available, if you have the same number of people mining, the network won't be more secure just because the hashrate is higher. It's all about how much $ it takes for an attacker to come up with enough hashrate to 51% the network. ASICs might eventually increase the network hashrate 50x but that does not mean the network is 50x more secure if it costs the same amount of money for someone to successfully attack the network.

Take for example, if someone found a way to optimize the miner software to be 10x better hashrate and it works on CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs. Then all of the sudden, the next day EVERYONE uses the new miner software and the network hashrate jumps from 50 thahs/s to 500 thash/s. Is the network now ten times more secure?

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1010

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Adding LTC, NMC, NVC, IXC, etc., will just make BTC look cheap and reinforce the notion that we should all just wait and see which one will be the best.

That's how you view because you're still stuck thinking there should be a single dominant cryptocurrency (BTC). The cryptocurrencies offer different advantages... PPCoin being energy efficient, Litecoin using Scrypt, Bitcoin having the most traction and most secure network... it might not ever be the case of one being 'the best'.

Also, investors care about different things. With a range of cryptocurrencies they can invest in a portfolio and spread their risk, or put it all into a risky cheap crypto. And so on.

You are right. Highly intelligent and educated investors do that, but not people with large amounts of money.

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

Quote from: mr_random on April 02, 2013, 01:23:59 PM

Adding LTC, NMC, NVC, IXC, etc., will just make BTC look cheap and reinforce the notion that we should all just wait and see which one will be the best.

That's how you view because you're still stuck thinking there should be a single dominant cryptocurrency (BTC). The cryptocurrencies offer different advantages... PPCoin being energy efficient, Litecoin using Scrypt, Bitcoin having the most traction and most secure network... it might not ever be the case of one being 'the best'.

Also, investors care about different things. With a range of cryptocurrencies they can invest in a portfolio and spread their risk, or put it all into a risky cheap crypto. And so on.

Luno

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 250

Same logic applies to llitecoin as it to bitcoin: Buy with fiat, don't sell a valuable asset to buy another with possible the same or less potential. Bitcoin is world wide mainstream now, at least in hype. It's like selling your apple stocks back in 98 for $48 and buy AOL.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1010

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

I suspect MTGOX is accepting LTC for the same reason, not because it has any inherit advantage over BTC.

Mtgox is accepting them because they are currently missing out on a 0.6% fee of millions of litecoins that are traded daily. They are a business and they care about making money... at the moment btc-e is making tens of thousands of dollars per day from these litecoins, and they are still small.

MTGOX is the primary exchange for new investors. Adding LTC, NMC, NVC, IXC, etc., will just make BTC look cheap and reinforce the notion that we should all just wait and see which one will be the best.

hanzac

sr. member

Activity: 425

Merit: 262

Litecoin is suitable for small payment, bitcoin is suitable for big bid. So they can co-exist with less competition.

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

I suspect MTGOX is accepting LTC for the same reason, not because it has any inherit advantage over BTC.

Mtgox is accepting them because they are currently missing out on a 0.6% fee of millions of litecoins that are traded daily. They are a business and they care about making money... at the moment btc-e is making tens of thousands of dollars per day from these litecoins, and they are still small.

Vuxil

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0