Topic: Is Litecoin really really cheap right now? Or is it dying? - page 12. (Read 25754 times)
Hard to read but +1 the btc crowd is stingy. That is why LTC will grow fast and if LTC users become stingy some other coin will take its place.
It's funny when Bit coin users expect LTC to be just as valuable and popular as BTC. Please fucktards, open your mind
Nobody expects Litecoin to be as valuable and popular as Bitcoin, that doesn't even make sense. The point is, that many altcoins are only created to benefit their creators and have no long term future. And I can think of a few scenario's in which Litecoin can be somewhat useful for a specific purpose, but not so much that it's a good idea to pour any money in it.
Oh really? So, how did coblee benefit from the creation of Litecoin? LTC donations?
Mining early on and waiting for suckers who buy in hoping to find the next Bitcoin?
Oh right, because Bitcoin is open source for no reason because it's perfect the way it. Open your eyes, dumbass. It's open source so someone can build off it. There's nothing wrong with trying to recreate Bitchcoin's success with another coin. You guys scared? If it's useless, then don't bother other people about. You guys stingy that only Bitcoin can be successful and should be the only cryptocoin that should exist?
I like the idea of litecoin, and I am going to support it in my business...... but. The lack of support for it has thus made it extremely hard to implement any thing in the way I have for bitcoin.
This kinda sucks cause it means I am going to have to do all the LTC transaction authorizations and stuff by hand.
Can you be specific? There is probably help if you let it be known what you need. This kinda sucks cause it means I am going to have to do all the LTC transaction authorizations and stuff by hand.
Litecoin was at the lowest (~ 0.0005 BTC) in February 2012, now it's February 2013 and we see a similar decline (though the absolute numbers are quite a bit higher). It probably has something to do with its natural cycle of evolution. Seems like a good time to buy.
And if you look at the text in the genesis block, you will see that the spirit of Steve Jobs himself is protecting this altchain, so I wouldn't worry too much about its long-term strength and vitality.
And if you look at the text in the genesis block, you will see that the spirit of Steve Jobs himself is protecting this altchain, so I wouldn't worry too much about its long-term strength and vitality.
up 400% in terms of btc in a year. not bad eh?
i could see this happening again honestly.
The situation is actually quite similar.
The decline a year ago was partially caused by the lack of interest/attention from developers (no updates to the client, no news).
Then it exploded when coblee released a new client after a few months of silence.
Guess what? coblee is working on a new client as we speak!
It's funny when Bit coin users expect LTC to be just as valuable and popular as BTC. Please fucktards, open your mind
Nobody expects Litecoin to be as valuable and popular as Bitcoin, that doesn't even make sense. The point is, that many altcoins are only created to benefit their creators and have no long term future. And I can think of a few scenario's in which Litecoin can be somewhat useful for a specific purpose, but not so much that it's a good idea to pour any money in it.
It's fairly easy to imagine that LItecoin would match Bitcoin's popularity today in a span of a few years reaching a few hundred millions USD in market cap (doh.. if those USDs are still around). That doesn't mean that Bitcoin will stay where it's at today.
Remember that Litecoin is just 1.5 years old and it already has a lot going on for it.
1) A diverse ecosystem of pools with Stratum support and P2Pool.
2) Several exchanges for BTC and fiat currencies.
3) It's own stock market (one of the best in the industry) with satellite Bitcoin stock market trading shares of the whole company denominated in LTC.
4) Add to the mix that Litecoin blockchain will get all the optimizations earlier in its evolution (compressed public keys, pruning, etc) to avoid bloat and you are looking at a very neat and clean currency with a lot of loyal users and great potential.
To those who question the competency of Litecoin developers, I would like to remind that Litecoin survived multiple severe transaction spamming attacks in the past (holy war with Solidcoin) and coblee did a good job to provide solutions for them as quickly as possible. The fact that Litecoin is heavily based on Bitcoin was a design decision from the start and it definitely has its own pros.
To think another alt chain cant compete is ignorant. Bitcoin is still tiny and the world is still huge for adoption.
There are 333 times more people on the planet then there will ever be bitcoins. If only 1% of people were to transact in bitcoins there would be 1 BTC per 3 users. Also, the bitcoin rich will always be hoarding tons of coins, so the real ration would probably be more like 6 users to 1 BTC.
If I was a newb in 2020 and someone told me that I could buy 0.1 of a bitcoin for a huge about of money, or that I could buy 10 litecoins for a small amount of money, and that they both worked the same way and had a lot in common etc..., I'd be inclined to explore litecoin "just cause". This next remark is very unscientific, but it's like there would be/is a natural hierarchy that forms, re: Gold -> Silver.
Does this idea go against the ethos of bitcoin?
...when you're not ignorant and have realized that Litecoin provides more usefulness than Bitcoin, but your dumb and old ass is in denial.
Apparently, the whole world is in denial and you're a special beautiful snowflake who has discovered a treasure and now you're waiting for the rest of society to catch up:
Most who know about litecoin aren't searching for it. LOL
hardly a good argument:
"look at DA red chart. See bitcoin is gooowd. Blue laheeen is bahd"
To think another alt chain cant compete is ignorant. Bitcoin is still tiny and the world is still huge for adoption.
It's funny when Bit coin users expect LTC to be just as valuable and popular as BTC. Please fucktards, open your mind
Nobody expects Litecoin to be as valuable and popular as Bitcoin, that doesn't even make sense. The point is, that many altcoins are only created to benefit their creators and have no long term future. And I can think of a few scenario's in which Litecoin can be somewhat useful for a specific purpose, but not so much that it's a good idea to pour any money in it.
Oh really? So, how did coblee benefit from the creation of Litecoin? LTC donations?
Mining early on and waiting for suckers who buy in hoping to find the next Bitcoin?
It's funny when Bit coin users expect LTC to be just as valuable and popular as BTC. Please fucktards, open your mind
Nobody expects Litecoin to be as valuable and popular as Bitcoin, that doesn't even make sense. The point is, that many altcoins are only created to benefit their creators and have no long term future. And I can think of a few scenario's in which Litecoin can be somewhat useful for a specific purpose, but not so much that it's a good idea to pour any money in it.
Oh really? So, how did coblee benefit from the creation of Litecoin? LTC donations?
How about when Bitcoin becomes no longer profitable to GPU mine because of ASIC introduction in the next couple of months?
Go back and look at the BTC charts for price and difficulty. In 2010 when GPU mining began, the hash rate of the network skyrocketed while the price largely stagnated. Then, in 2011, the price exploded, following the difficulty instead of the other way around.
This is the whole reason Litecoin has survived this long and continues to survive. People want to eventually get rich, and they're buying it and holding it. We're already 3/8th of the way to block reward halving, and it keeps going every day.
Go back and look at the BTC charts for price and difficulty. In 2010 when GPU mining began, the hash rate of the network skyrocketed while the price largely stagnated. Then, in 2011, the price exploded, following the difficulty instead of the other way around.
This is the whole reason Litecoin has survived this long and continues to survive. People want to eventually get rich, and they're buying it and holding it. We're already 3/8th of the way to block reward halving, and it keeps going every day.
It's funny when Bit coin users expect LTC to be just as valuable and popular as BTC. Please fucktards, open your mind
Nobody expects Litecoin to be as valuable and popular as Bitcoin, that doesn't even make sense. The point is, that many altcoins are only created to benefit their creators and have no long term future. And I can think of a few scenario's in which Litecoin can be somewhat useful for a specific purpose, but not so much that it's a good idea to pour any money in it.
It's funny when Bit coin users expect LTC to be just as valuable and popular as BTC. Please fucktards, open your mind
Let us know when that jalapeno comes in
LOL... "any day now". No, really!
...it wouldn't be controlled by a few rich ASIC monopolies that could afford to invest in risky/specialized hardware that can't be used for anything else.
Cheap ASICs allow a much bigger audience of users than buying backplanes with tons of slots, an array of video cards, and elaborate cooling systems. Case in point, I have never mined using GPUs or FPGAs because it's too expensive, cumbersome, and bulky. But I did place an order for a $150 BFL Jalapeno. I know many others in the same boat.
Your premise that ASICs will centralize control is completely false. Just the opposite in fact, ASICs further decentralize the network by lowering the barrier to mining accessibility.
Let us know when that jalapeno comes in
So you're assuming it has 4 times the transactions then complaining that the block chain being 4 times the size is the problem?
No, I'm saying that if both currencies are successful the transaction volume will be more than what the max block size of either currency can handle. The complaint is not the size of the block chain but the scale of the loss in hashing power.
Quote
If that argument makes sense (it doesn't) the surely the current situation where there's a lot LESS transactions on LTC means LTC is the better currency?
You could say that the decreased transaction volume of Litecoin produces less loss of hashing power in the case of a future increase in transaction volume. That doesn't make LTC a better currency. All else being equal, the inability to mine Litecoin with ASICs makes it worse than Bitcoin. That the "developers" of Litecoin made ASICs being unsuitable as a design criteria points to their ignorance.
Litecoin is crap.
Who told you Litecoin can't be mined with ASIC? ASIC can be made for Litecoin, it's just the advantage is smaller over GPU compared to Bitcoin, but there are still big advantages. If Litecoin market cap goes up to the point of 300M like Bitcoin, I guarantee there will be ASIC for Litecoin. It's just that GPU mining in Litecoin won't be easily made obsolete if you have cheap electricity.
You still haven't explained why decreased hashing power for everyone would result in a "big problem"?
So you're assuming it has 4 times the transactions then complaining that the block chain being 4 times the size is the problem?
No, I'm saying that if both currencies are successful the transaction volume will be more than what the max block size of either currency can handle. The complaint is not the size of the block chain but the scale of the loss in hashing power.
Quote
If that argument makes sense (it doesn't) the surely the current situation where there's a lot LESS transactions on LTC means LTC is the better currency?
You could say that the decreased transaction volume of Litecoin produces less loss of hashing power in the case of a future increase in transaction volume. That doesn't make LTC a better currency. All else being equal, the inability to mine Litecoin with ASICs makes it worse than Bitcoin. That the "developers" of Litecoin made ASICs being unsuitable as a design criteria points to their ignorance.
Litecoin is crap.
Surely that's not too hard for you to understand?
The unstated assumption in my analysis is that the transaction volume for Litecoin is four times that of Bitcoin.
Regardless, Litecoin is still crap.
So you're assuming it has 4 times the transactions then complaining that the block chain being 4 times the size is the problem?
If that argument makes sense (it doesn't) the surely the current situation where there's a lot LESS transactions on LTC means LTC is the better currency?
What a dumb argument to make.
Yes I understand your theory of losing hash power, but what I don't understand is why is that a problem? the decrease in hash power would be the same for everyone that is mining, correct?
No, and no. The decrease in hashing power for a particular miner is in inverse proportion to their bandwidth. The miners with the highest bandwidth, will lose very little hashing power while the miners with the lowest bandwidth will lose the most. Litecoin's fast block times makes worse the very thing that they hoped to solve: centralization of miners.
But even if we ignore the centralization of mining power, the total hash rate is what determines the security of the coin. Both Bitcoin and Litecoin will lose some total hashing power as transaction volume increases, but Litecoin will lose hashing power four times faster. That means that Litecoin's security goes down four times as quickly as Bitcoin as transaction rates increase. This is a good thing?
First, a 1MB block takes less than a second to download for even basic home broadbands. Plus, most people mine on a pool, I would hope a pool is hosted on some good bandwidth, otherwise it's not a very good pool/host.
Second, yes large total hashing power is good for security, but since the decrease in hashing power is the same for everyone, what is the problem? I don't really understand your logic here. It would only be a problem, if some miner can avoid the decrease of hashing power and gain an unfair advantage over others.
Well litecoin seems to have initially targeted people who want to buy their bubblegum now now now not waiting ten minutes, so really if fastfood serving speeds at the checkout is the priority maybe losing the price of a pack of bubblegum now and then is worth it to get the checkout working faster, to these people?
If we want something really really super-secure, forgetting impatient now now now consumer-level applications entirely for super secure "your new Rolls Royce will be ready at the end of the week, please send the payment today so it will clear by the end of the week" applications we don't even need the ten minute blocks we can go with hourly or every twelve hours or every 24 hours and get oodles of hashing done on each transaction sufficiently hefty to be worth using such a chain for instead of trying to buy your Rolls with litecoin or even bitcoin.
Hmm maybe a Rolls with bitcoin, what the heck, maybe it is a consumer item for rock stars and such. But a fleet of a thousand cars for your car rental franchise maybe could go on the slow chain instead of the bitcoin chain.
-MarkM-
If we want something really really super-secure, forgetting impatient now now now consumer-level applications entirely for super secure "your new Rolls Royce will be ready at the end of the week, please send the payment today so it will clear by the end of the week" applications we don't even need the ten minute blocks we can go with hourly or every twelve hours or every 24 hours and get oodles of hashing done on each transaction sufficiently hefty to be worth using such a chain for instead of trying to buy your Rolls with litecoin or even bitcoin.
Hmm maybe a Rolls with bitcoin, what the heck, maybe it is a consumer item for rock stars and such. But a fleet of a thousand cars for your car rental franchise maybe could go on the slow chain instead of the bitcoin chain.
-MarkM-
Surely that's not too hard for you to understand?
The unstated assumption in my analysis is that the transaction volume for Litecoin is four times that of Bitcoin.
Regardless, Litecoin is still crap.
Explain to me why litecoin max block size is "10 times worse" than bitcoin? litecoin has 4X more blocks...
I thought Litecoin used 1 minute blocks, my mistake. I updated my post. So, the max block problem is only four times worse. Here's why:
If having a maximum block size is a problem, then both Bitcoin and Litecoin will suffer from it. Litecoin does quadruple the maximum rate of allowable transactions, from Bitcoin's 7 per second to Litecoin's 28 per second. But 28 is still quite low for many purposes. Both Litecoin and Bitcoin will need to raise the maximum block size at some point.
With Bitcoin, a miner has 10 minutes for it to download a new block, while there is 2.5 minutes for Litecoin. Let's say that a block takes the average node 10 seconds to download. In Bitcoin that corresponds to 1.67% of the time between blocks. For Litecoin, it is 6.67%.
Now imagine that we double the block size (a conservative measure). The amount of time consumed by downloading now becomes 3.33% for Bitcoin, and a whopping 13.33% for Litecoin! The Bitcoin network has lost 1.6% of its total hashing power, while Litecoin has lost an astounding 6.66% of its hashing power. Every increase in the block size will hurt the total hashing power of Litecoin four times as much as it would for Bitcoin.
The reason that hashing power goes down when block size goes up is because mining cannot begin until the new block has been downloaded. Since the time between blocks is constant, any increase in the time required to download will cause a decrease in the amount of time available for hashing. This is true for both Bitcoin and Litecoin.
The point is that the "developers" of Litecoin are not really developers at all. They took Bitcoin and simply hacked it without having the knowledge and experience of true cryptocurrency developers.
Litecoin is a fucking joke.
Major math fail above.
The amount of data that needs to be stored in the block chain for X transactions is essentially identical for LTC and BTC. Difference is that LTC spreads it over more blocks. As far as block-CHAIN size is concerned, the LTC chain will grow in size faster due entirely to there being more blocks generated NOT because of transactions.
If BTC and LTC had the same number of transactions per hour (and it was a large number such that the per-block overhead was pretty irrelevant) then each LTC block would be 1/4 the size of a BTC one - but there'd be 4 times as many of them. That ends up being the SAME amount of data downloaded per hour.
IF your argument is that LTC having block-sized doubled more times makes it worse then problem is that IF there were sufficent transactions to NEED that extra space then you're arguing that LTC is worse because it does it slowly whilst BTC can't do it at all.
THis bit shows your ignorance at its best:
"With Bitcoin, a miner has 10 minutes for it to download a new block, while there is 2.5 minutes for Litecoin. Let's say that a block takes the average node 10 seconds to download. In Bitcoin that corresponds to 1.67% of the time between blocks. For Litecoin, it is 6.67%."
Well if it takes the same amount of time to download for both and we already know there's 4 times as many LTC blocks then you're comparing an LTC with FOUR TIMES the transactions/hour of BTC to BTC then whining that it would be 4 times as bad. Hardly a surprise is it? If there's 4 times as many blocks then each block is going to contain 1/4 the transactions and be about 1/4 the size (assuming same rate of transactions/hour) and will take 1/4 the time to download. Surely that's not too hard for you to understand?
Jump to: