Pages:
Author

Topic: Is competition healthy for Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 11351 times)

sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
March 25, 2013, 05:10:42 PM
LTC is better in that it is FASTER. I hate having to wait 1 hour to send coins. Litecoin is super fast. go get a cup of coffee come back and its transferred.
It is not faster. This is a myth.

The reason you wait 1 hour is because you want to make sure there are sufficient computations behind your transaction that the chance of it being reverted is low. If you want the same security with Litecoin, you need the same number of computations, not the same number of confirmations. That is, it takes just as long (assuming the hash rate is the same, long if it's less).


Thank you for pointing this out.  I have been quietly thinking that this is an issue for several alternative cryptocurrencies (including my preference, TerraCoin).  I notice that some processors wait for more confirmations in TRC than they would for BTC, and I assume that is because they are aware of this issue.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
March 19, 2013, 06:05:38 AM
Aren't you confusing 2 different concepts?
Sure, an attack on the network could orphan an hour's worth of transactions.
But normal orphaning (due to questionable non-clocked, non-deterministic design choices of both LTC and BTC) seems much more likely.
You can't just defend against the most likely threats. If you make a habit of that, the less likely threats will suddenly start happening an awful lot more. You might get away with it for awhile, but I wouldn't suggest it.

You need sufficient hashing power after your transaction, not some magic number of confirmations. Some crypto-currencies dishonestly and deceptively promote "faster confirmations" as if that meant your could rely on a transaction sooner. In fact, it just means you need more confirmations to acquire sufficient proof of work after your transaction to secure it.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
March 18, 2013, 07:59:08 PM
LTC is better in that it is FASTER. I hate having to wait 1 hour to send coins. Litecoin is super fast. go get a cup of coffee come back and its transferred.
It is not faster. This is a myth.

The reason you wait 1 hour is because you want to make sure there are sufficient computations behind your transaction that the chance of it being reverted is low. If you want the same security with Litecoin, you need the same number of computations, not the same number of confirmations. That is, it takes just as long (assuming the hash rate is the same, long if it's less).
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
March 18, 2013, 05:45:08 PM
Honestly Litecoin is ridiculous, Its no better then Bitcoin and just something that will sidetrack the Bitcoin economy. Im sure the creator is sitting on Billions of Litecoins so if the price does ever achieve something hes a millionare.

Gosh you LTC haters need new material that has facts.

LTC is better in that it is FASTER. I hate having to wait 1 hour to send coins. Litecoin is super fast. go get a cup of coffee come back and its transferred.

In the technological arena...faster has value...more than you might think.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
March 18, 2013, 05:34:49 PM
Honestly Litecoin is ridiculous, Its no better then Bitcoin and just something that will sidetrack the Bitcoin economy. Im sure the creator is sitting on Billions of Litecoins so if the price does ever achieve something hes a millionare.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
March 18, 2013, 09:11:15 AM
Well, this would make the telephone calls extremely valuable
I have yet to hear this theory articulated by anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interests in this area. Nor has anyone ever been able to give me an example in the real world where making a service deliberately less useful causes its value to increase.
I think we must be talking past each other. I certainly don't think that making a service less useful will increase its value.

Say there was a drastic car shortage and the price of cars went up to $100,000. There are some people who need a car badly enough that they'll pay $100,000 for one. Thus, the price/value of a car will go up. However, the total value of all cars will go down. And, of course, the car market will be vulnerable because cars will be overpriced -- any substitute for a car could take a huge chunk of the market very quickly.

This is "good" in two ways. Anyone who needs a car badly enough will still get one and the price of cars will go way up. But this will make the market as a whole vulnerable.

legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
March 18, 2013, 08:57:53 AM
Well, this would make the telephone calls extremely valuable
I have yet to hear this theory articulated by anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interests in this area. Nor has anyone ever been able to give me an example in the real world where making a service deliberately less useful causes its value to increase.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
March 18, 2013, 08:54:24 AM
A better analogy would be a telephone network that only allows a global maximum of 10 calls to take place at any given moment and refuses to increase capacity no matter how many subscribers it has or how much they are willing to pay to make a call.

Bitcoins have no value to someone who isn't actually able to use them, just like a telephone isn't useful if you can't actually call anybody.
Well, this would make the telephone calls extremely valuable, at least until someone else built a better telephone network.

If the capacity of the network is limited, transaction fees will be bid up. Only the "most important" transactions will go through. The network will still be extremely valuable so long as there *are* important transactions. But it will also be vulnerable because there will be a large area of need (admittedly lower in value per-transaction but still a huge amount in total) that it won't be serving.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
March 18, 2013, 08:14:12 AM
Why would people invest in a crypto-currency that can't even run it's own network and approve transactions? If it got to the point where the transaction list was so far backlogged that people could't even spend their money, I'd say that crypto-currency has pretty much failed.
Exactly! If it gets too popular, nobody will want to use it. Just like restaurants that are so crowded you can't even get a table -- nobody goes to those.
A better analogy would be a telephone network that only allows a global maximum of 10 calls to take place at any given moment and refuses to increase capacity no matter how many subscribers it has or how much they are willing to pay to make a call.

Bitcoins have no value to someone who isn't actually able to use them, just like a telephone isn't useful if you can't actually call anybody.
full member
Activity: 235
Merit: 100
March 17, 2013, 02:41:11 AM
Better more crypto currencies than fiat monopolies
member
Activity: 110
Merit: 10
March 17, 2013, 12:37:21 AM

Competition makes anything better. Competition promotes excellence and prevents any one company (or person or idea or whatever...) from becoming the rule-maker for everyone. Competition promotes stability in prices and prevents gouging. It allows for the best stuff to float to the top.

I hope litecoin gives bitcoin a run for its money. They, and we, will be better for it.

Competition makes everything better.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
March 16, 2013, 10:49:47 PM
Well, nobody who is nobody does... Smiley Cheesy

-MarkM-
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
March 16, 2013, 10:24:30 PM
Why would people invest in a crypto-currency that can't even run it's own network and approve transactions? If it got to the point where the transaction list was so far backlogged that people could't even spend their money, I'd say that crypto-currency has pretty much failed.
Exactly! If it gets too popular, nobody will want to use it. Just like restaurants that are so crowded you can't even get a table -- nobody goes to those.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
March 16, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
Then BTC will become a medium of exchange that can satisfy increased transaction volume with larger and larger block size, the price stays stable. And LTC becomes a store of value that could not handle too much transaction but the price is rising 50% per month, everyone is eagerly waiting in line to get their transaction in queue  Roll Eyes
Why would people invest in a crypto-currency that can't even run it's own network and approve transactions? If it got to the point where the transaction list was so far backlogged that people could't even spend their money, I'd say that crypto-currency has pretty much failed.

The reason is simple: price rise 50% per month, because limited supply, no one change the protocol, stable like a rock. People will bid up the transaction fee to make the processing faster
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1021
March 16, 2013, 04:39:12 PM
Competition motivates people a bit, but the biggest motivation in human life is cooperation (just think about relationships). You can't start a successful business without any employees and it won't be successful without partnerships.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1538
yes
March 16, 2013, 04:38:21 PM
I sent some 'dust' today resulting in 100 pieces for a 0.36 BTC transfer. Took hours to complete 6 confirmations. If small payments are a problem, there is a future problem that needs to be sorted out.

I understand the concept of 6 confirmations, but preferably it remains within the 10 minutes time frame and never takes longer.
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1000
March 16, 2013, 04:26:07 PM
Then BTC will become a medium of exchange that can satisfy increased transaction volume with larger and larger block size, the price stays stable. And LTC becomes a store of value that could not handle too much transaction but the price is rising 50% per month, everyone is eagerly waiting in line to get their transaction in queue  Roll Eyes
Why would people invest in a crypto-currency that can't even run it's own network and approve transactions? If it got to the point where the transaction list was so far backlogged that people could't even spend their money, I'd say that crypto-currency has pretty much failed.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
March 16, 2013, 09:14:50 AM

In view of recent events I've come to the conclusion, even if it's only for the bold portion above, supporting litecoin is essential, it's similarity to Bitcoin is a stregnth not a weakness.


Agreed, bitcoin has reached a maturity/complexity level that politics has become a big concern, there is no existing clear governance structure. The increase of mining power after ASIC release forced many people out the game. LTC on the other hand are relatively young, and GPU is available everywhere, it does not have those problems right now

Imagine that one day, bitcoin forked into two chain because of the conflicting interest of different involved parties, while LTC keep a promise of never change the existing protocol (ironically, it is because no developers are messing with the code Grin), I guess LTC price will bypass BTC

Then BTC will become a medium of exchange that can satisfy increased transaction volume with larger and larger block size, the price stays stable. And LTC becomes a store of value that could not handle too much transaction but the price is rising 50% per month, everyone is eagerly waiting in line to get their transaction in queue  Roll Eyes





legendary
Activity: 1096
Merit: 1067
March 12, 2013, 06:37:45 PM
Yes, competition is good.  The Bitcoin community should work hard at making Bitcoin as good as it can be to ensure the network effect takes hold and makes it as difficult as possible for an alt-coin to gain market share.  This doesn't mean that an alt-coin would ultimately have to cease to exist, it just means that Bitcoin should capture the bulk of the new adopters of digital currencies such that Bitcoin enjoys a better growth rate (and hence, appreciation in value) than these competitors.  The altcoins could still exist and serve some niche markets.

Is it likely bit pay etc. could offer checkout in any alt-coin of choice?
Yes, but not in the way you think.  Here's some insight into our thought process on this question: Bitcoin is currently the most secure method of electronic payment on the planet.  The network of miners is what provides that security and today it vastly exceeds that of any altcoin.  Bitpay will use the most secure and private payment method available for the actual transaction.  But that doesn't mean you couldn't use Litecoin, you just need a wallet that can automatically exchange Litecoin for Bitcoin just prior to a transaction.  Should something disastrous happen with Bitcoin and Litecoin became the most secure method of payment, we would transition to using Litecoin for the payment mechanism (and then you would need to exchange your Bitcoins for Litecoins just prior to conducting the transaction).

So, when I think about Litecoin (and the other alt coins), I think of it in terms of:
- providing that competitive pressure to Bitcoin that you allude to
- being a contingency solution should something disastrous happen to Bitcoin
- being of some utility for people that might like to have transactions that aren't visible on the Bitcoin blockchain


In view of recent events I've come to the conclusion, even if it's only for the bold portion above, supporting litecoin is essential, it's similarity to Bitcoin is a stregnth not a weakness.
Pages:
Jump to: