Topic: Bitcoin vs Litecoin - page 2. (Read 4265 times)

I don't see anyone dumping their litecoins even after its price went from 2$ to 40$. Obviously there is a lot of speculation around it but certainly not a pump and dump scheme.

If there were any shred of truth (or sense) to this, it would have happened by now. But thanks for letting us know what we should or shouldn't find interesting

Why Litecoin and other copies of bitcoin will never reach the bitcoin marketcap.

The only altcoin that can eventually take off is an altcoin that have interesting features for the end users that can't be added to the bitcoin protocol (mining algorithms and blockchain organization are not interesting for the end user). This is not going to happen by tomorrow because of 2 things badly needed to work as a currency: Trust + Network effect. Those two fundamental things need a lot of time to get achieve. Bitcoin will get to it full potential before any better altcoin to take off because they will need to pass the same "time" test.

The whole "Bitcoin vs Litecoin" makes absolutely no sense. Or at best, about as much sense as the "silver to Bitcoin's gold" analogy. The two are completely separate and do not compete nor were they designed to compete with each other (IMHO they're more complimentary than competitive). I'm surprised that people ITT have thus far neglected to mention that Litecoin can offer an additional layer of obfuscation for other cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. In fact it's probably the only other chain that has sufficient volume to support this role and that alone makes it unique among alt chains and valuable in itself.

Litecoin is mostly useless, because 2.5 minutes still is too long for any point of sale transactions. There are ways to allow instant transactions by building services on top of Bitcoin, and that is what will happen. You are right that the "bitcoin is too expensive" argument makes no sense, because of the divisibility of Bitcoin. mBTC is the silver to BTC's gold.

Litecoin's popularity is mainly driven by the following factors, as far as I can tell:

(1) Being Scrypt-based means it captured the users who wanted to mine with CPUs just because they thought mining was cool and wanted to mine something, driving adoption.
(2) People who felt they missed out on the rise in value of BTC wanted to feel like they still had a shot to get in on something on the ground floor.
(3) The "silver to BTC's gold" marketing gimmick is very clever and catchy, although meaningless, causing all media outlets to repeat it whenever they do a story on Litecoin.
(4) Unlike with other altcoins, the founder is credible and actually has skills.

The problem is that if you look at how many smart people are working on Bitcoin infrastructure how many people are working on Bitcoin startups, compared to Litecoin, and look at the lead in adoption that Bitcoin already has, it's clear that Litecoin will not overtake Bitcoin. And since Litecoin offers no real benefits over Bitcoin, the only place for it to go is to zero or very near zero. Look at the Bitcoin 2013 conference videos on youtube and look how many extremely talented people are backing Bitcoin. Then try to find anyone impressive other than Charles Lee (edit: and Warren Togami, the lead dev) who is backing Litecoin.

I do not hate Litecoin. I own Litcoins.I am all in favor of competition between cryptocurrencies. However, I do not see Litecoin as a competitor to Bitcoin. Very few outside of the crypto world are aware of Litecoin. The recent surge in the Bitcoin price has brought more attention to Litecoin, which is fine. However, very few merchants accept them. Now in time this may change. But even if it does, do we really need two currencies which are very similar being used for the same purpose?

Litecoins can be used for small transactions--but so can Bitcoins in macro and micro transactions.

Right now, I see two purposes of Litecoin:

1. That which applies to all digital currencies--to bypass central authorities and send money or transact without borders.

2. To speculate.

But is this enough to support Litecoin in the future?

Haha sure I understand what you're saying, but if you were to send a litecoin to me right this instant, I would receive it faster than if you were to send me a bitcoin. I was more making a point to the OP

      so weird, why are people so threatened by litecoin?  i personally think ripples are a shit currency, but i've never felt strongly enough to make a thread on it.  i think it goes against human nature to have just 1 be all end all of anything, be it religon, government, money, it doesn't matter we are too individual to just go with one thing.  Since its easy to liquidate bitcoin into litecoin or vice versa both blockchains are strengthened from attack by governments/thieves/lawyers. Theres one gazillion alt coins out there but since crypto is still a completely free market only a handful have been picked to be of value.  Litecoin's spendability makes it #2 hands down if only for that reason.  I personally originally got into litecoins because it was the first alt coin to say "we want this coin to compliment bitcoin" vs all the others that were "we are better than bitcoins!".    Also its fallacy to think that litecoin needs a big exchange in order to survive.  Its done pretty well for the last 2 years without anything bigger than btc-e.com.   I'd say in the future there will be even more coins that have value, although i'd say namecoin has the best spot to take #3 but not so much bc of its function, more because bitcoin miners also mine namecoin.  
   But yeah really i don't understand the hate.  

yes, i think litecoin has a place.. but as of now, i consider it a purely speculative asset. BTC is speculative too, but it has much more infrastructure and support from its holders.

i think litecoin will have value once or if bitcoin gets so big that there's enough room for another player.

No, it doesn't.  Faster block times do not equate to faster confirmations.  To decide if a transaction is "confirmed," you need to analyze the difficulty of a double spend attack at each block height.  Faster blocks are accomplished by having lower difficulty - so you need more blocks to get an equivalent chance of protection against double spend.

litecoin is used by ignorant people who think they missed the boat on bitcoin, and think litecoin is a suitable alternative.

in fact bitcoin has many boats, and everyone can get in, even if you're the last person on earth to board the bitcoin boat you'll still profit from its benefits.

Unique imrovements could be implemented in the litecoin protocol that make it increasingly distinct from Bitcoin. The same can be said of course of Bitcoin - so essentially it's true value just like that of Bitcoin at this time is undiscovered.

Protocol changes that work for one won't necessarily be in the best interest of the other and vIse versa. So the idea that they will continue forever forward implementing the exact same features is a short sighted view.

I probably would say this as I'm invested in all 3, but here goes "tomatoes" at the ready

Bitcoin
Litecoin
Quark

In that order will become the dominant force in cryptocurrencys or shouldn't we now call them "virtual commodities"

Your answer seems extremely biased. IF (notice the IF) you are assuming that cryptos are to be used in everyday transactoins, then Litecoin makes more logical sense than Bitcoin. Litecoin offers MUCH faster transaction times. That alone is a huge plus for any merchant who is considering accepting crypto as payment. No one wants to wait 20 minutes for a transaction to go through, regardless of what fee they avoid. In addition, because both Bitcoin and Litecoin are deflationary, the cost of services and commodities will only continue to drop in comparison to the price of the coin. Since there can only be 21 million BTC in existence ever, it seems pretty ridiculous that a merchant would except payment of BTC. Looking forward, the deflation on the coin would be too great to the point where no one is going to pay .000002 for a cup of coffee. This is why the 4x greater market cap of Litecoin makes more sense regarding your argument of cryptos as an everyday currency. There are a lot of people in the world 

However, in my own personal opinion, if you are comparing Bitcoin and Litecoin to gold and silver then you should not expect it to behave as an everyday transactional currency. Like gold or silver, the intrinsic value comes from utility in the form of being able to move HUGE amounts of money quickly and easily with miniscule fees attached. While that may not seem like that big of a utility function, it is. Break out of the mindset of person to person and start thinking business to business. The faster a transaction can happen, the faster life can go on. It's all about progression.

There are plenty of other reasons why Litecoin could be considered more useful, but in reality they compliment each other. Also remember that Litecoin is half the age of Bitcoin.

Considering the similarities between the two and the fact LTC offers little "improvements" (which many would dispute are improvements at all), does anyone seriously consider Litecoin having a place in the world? We all hear that Litecoin is silver to Bitcoin's gold--and while this may sound plausible, it really makes no sense. Litecoin acceptance in the marketplace is dismal; it's only real hope is that one of the major (other than BTC-e) exchangers accept it. But even then, why would anyone use LTC over BTC for transactions?

Are we supposed to assume that, in the future, people will use their silver (Litecoins) for small purchases and Bitcoin for larger transactions?

LTC appears to offer very little (if anything) to the marketplace. Its sole benefit appears to be pump and dump. LTC was going up in value and will undoubtedly grow in value over time; but beyond speculation, there is little benefit to this coin in the marketplace.

Competition in cryptocurrenies are a good thing (let the market determine the best coin) but LTC is not that coin.

Who here agrees or disagrees and why?