Pages:
Author

Topic: Litecoin IS Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 2978 times)

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
August 19, 2016, 07:28:30 AM
#36
Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).


The addresses are definitely not multisig.
full member
Activity: 246
Merit: 100
August 19, 2016, 05:27:30 AM
#35
Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

I listed them from most high to low likelihood. That is all there is to it. Price protection, "wanting bitcoin to succeed" and superhuman restraint have nothing to do with it.

4th option seems most likely. It would take a person with autism to create such a master piece.
Don't forget the 5th option though! Which is also likely if you really knew how things worked around here Smiley

What if a think tank was commissioned by the (insert group name here) global banking cartel, masons, shadow governments, etc etc. But why?

This is what I would do... appear as though you're a grassroots decentralized peer to peer digital monetary system (money of the people) -> Acquire a controlling amount of the supply in the beginning, but claim it was fairly distributed because anyone "could" have mined it -> build the network effect to such a degree that it encompasses everyone's conciseness (everyone is well aware of it) -> then use the hegelian dialectic method (problem/reaction/solution) to slowly erode the current global monetary system through a painful hyper inflation forcing everyone into my digital web of control -> once the old system collapsed I'd issue a ban on all physical cash (1933 U.S. banned gold so these things do happen) making it impossible to leave this new digital monetary network -> once a firm dependence on Bitcoin and a handful of other coins were in place I would then build out an identification system (such as a Bitcoin wallet address service like a Yelp for people and or businesses) to be tied to all of these transparent transactions (similar to the internet of things, but a record of every transaction that will ever occur) -> put in place an automated taxation system -> finally a biometrics system would then be tied into all of this -> dissenters of our system or anyone that questions it would have their coins black listed and deemed a terrorist or whatever term you want to apply to them -> global humanity checkmated once again Smiley

That's the fun conspiratorial side of it. However, the US Department of Defense was largely responsible for the creation of the internet, so this isn't sooooo far fetched.

Buutttttt if something like that did occur I would assume people would simply create an anti-tyrannically coin and flock to that (with 100% privacy).

Annd no I'm not a subterranean reptilian overlord from Uranus...
full member
Activity: 299
Merit: 100
August 19, 2016, 05:20:01 AM
#34
For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

At least not initially. Litecoin is probably one of the fairest coins upon launch.
Take a look at this keynote by Charlie Lee (coblee) about how this was done: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yi845h24aTQ. This meant that there was initially a larger number of miners who started mining.

The top 5 addresses are all held by big exchanges (cold wallets); if I remember correctly the top 1 address was held by Huobi. With Bitcoin, this might not be so obvious, but Coinbase claims to hold a larger number of BTC in cold storage. + same with Bitcoin too (Chinese exchanges)...

It makes sense that exchanges handle some of the largest amount of currency, since that's where trading occurs.
YIz
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 502
August 19, 2016, 05:12:45 AM
#33
My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

Even if he's dead by now, he probably left a backup and told his relatives about it, he won't just throw away millions of dollars.

You think? Smiley

Quote
While he was alive, Kleiman kept a heavy-duty USB drive on his person at all times. Paige believes it might have been made by the brand Corsair — which boasts that its products are encased in “an anodized aircraft-grade aluminum housing.” If he really did possess a Satoshi Nakamoto-level fortune, it may have been sitting on that drive. According to Paige, that drive was passed to Kleiman’s brother Ira, who declined to speak on the record about whether he possessed it. But even if the bitcoins were there, recovering them wouldn’t be nearly as simple as pulling files from an ordinary USB drive. Kleiman, the consummate security buff, locked down everything he owned with encryption strong enough that even his tech-savvy partners doubt they’d be able to crack it. “If you told me there was a million dollars on Dave’s computer in this room, I wouldn’t even bother trying to look for it,” Paige said. “It would be a waste of time.”

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

Even if they were encrypted, he handed him the drive for a reason. he surely gave him the encryption key for the drive.
Maybe he didn't spend them because he doesn't actually need any money, or maybe he dumped the drive an hour later, we'll never know, or maybe we will?
legendary
Activity: 1960
Merit: 1176
@FAILCommunity
August 19, 2016, 05:02:21 AM
#32
My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

Even if he's dead by now, he probably left a backup and told his relatives about it, he won't just throw away millions of dollars.

You think? Smiley

Quote
While he was alive, Kleiman kept a heavy-duty USB drive on his person at all times. Paige believes it might have been made by the brand Corsair — which boasts that its products are encased in “an anodized aircraft-grade aluminum housing.” If he really did possess a Satoshi Nakamoto-level fortune, it may have been sitting on that drive. According to Paige, that drive was passed to Kleiman’s brother Ira, who declined to speak on the record about whether he possessed it. But even if the bitcoins were there, recovering them wouldn’t be nearly as simple as pulling files from an ordinary USB drive. Kleiman, the consummate security buff, locked down everything he owned with encryption strong enough that even his tech-savvy partners doubt they’d be able to crack it. “If you told me there was a million dollars on Dave’s computer in this room, I wouldn’t even bother trying to look for it,” Paige said. “It would be a waste of time.”

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460
YIz
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 502
August 19, 2016, 04:58:31 AM
#31
My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

Even if he's dead by now, he probably left a backup and told his relatives about it, he won't just throw away millions of dollars.
legendary
Activity: 1960
Merit: 1176
@FAILCommunity
August 19, 2016, 04:56:59 AM
#30
With that said, I feel that Satoshi does deserve the coins that he mined (as well as every cent they are worth).

completely disagree, and it almost entirely defeats the purpose of having a decentralised p2p currency. not point in having an alternative to the banker/gov controlled fiat if we just replace them with a new banker with an even bigger cut.

Your sound like most of the people here who are constantly asking for news from developers, because they only care about their $5 profit. These are the people who are always "waiting something to happen", instead to try and help with something. Of course that the creator of Bitcoin deserves the money, he made 100s or maybe 1000s of people millionaires.
YIz
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 502
August 19, 2016, 04:51:48 AM
#29
Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

I listed them from most high to low likelihood. That is all there is to it. Price protection, "wanting bitcoin to succeed" and superhuman restraint have nothing to do with it.

I assume the person who invented bitcoin knows how to handle his private keys.
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
August 19, 2016, 04:46:02 AM
#28
With that said, I feel that Satoshi does deserve the coins that he mined (as well as every cent they are worth).

completely disagree, and it almost entirely defeats the purpose of having a decentralised p2p currency. not point in having an alternative to the banker/gov controlled fiat if we just replace them with a new banker with an even bigger cut.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
August 19, 2016, 04:27:52 AM
#27
Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

I listed them from most high to low likelihood. That is all there is to it. Price protection, "wanting bitcoin to succeed" and superhuman restraint have nothing to do with it.
copper member
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1465
Clueless!
August 19, 2016, 04:13:30 AM
#26
Thing is, is that Satoshi can't move his coins without the market collapsing completely.  People would argue other wise, but that's the problem with a coin (same with litecoin) having poor amount of fungibilty.  If anyone can see what goes in and out of Satoshi's wallet, then when he moves it somewhere else, they will automatically assume the worst and think he/she/they/it is going to completely dump everything and crash the price which causes uncertainty.

So in other words... no, even if that entity still exist on this planet and has the ability to sell off those coins, I don't think Satoshi would until Satoshi wants to "kill" bitcoin.  Because there isn't as big of a holder as a million litecoin (I don't think at least), there still remains a problem of fungibility.

So essentially you are dealing with 20mil bitcoins instead of 21mil

Well in 2020 Craig Wright who claims to be Satoshi also claims he will have access to the above BTC in a Trust that was set up. As pissed off as he is
at everyone in the crypto world..if true (odds are 1 in 1,000,000 he is Satoshi) we could be in for a rude awakening indeed in 2020.

Don't really believe the guy...but in a scary movie kind of way does give one the shivers Sad

hero member
Activity: 1568
Merit: 507
August 19, 2016, 04:13:07 AM
#25
It is possible that satoshi has lost the private keys to the early coins considering that bitcoin had no value back then. I would not be surprised if he didnt bother backing up his wallets as he himself considered bitcoin an experiment.
full member
Activity: 246
Merit: 100
August 19, 2016, 04:08:18 AM
#24
For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

A Chinese whale holds this address, and Chinese big miners have very large hashrate, I think ltc is unfair coin.

It is fair. That particular wallet didn't start accumulating coins until March, 2016. Litecoin launched in October, 2011 which was 4 years after it officially launched and everyone was aware of it.

Also, I would rather they push it all into one wallet then split it up a hundred ways to give the false perception of a better distribution like BTC. How many wallets does Satoshi have? Nobody really knows and he's estimated to have closer to 1.5MM, but I wanted to be conservative.

How many coins does Karpeles have (he hacked gox, let's get real)? Roger Ver? Winklevoss? Vorhees? Bitfinex Hackers? Big Vern?

It's pretty damn centralized. My hope is that these whales would liquidate and reinvest in further infrastructure development for both BTC and LTC.


legendary
Activity: 1960
Merit: 1176
@FAILCommunity
August 19, 2016, 03:32:55 AM
#23
My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
August 19, 2016, 03:04:09 AM
#22
For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

A Chinese whale holds this address, and Chinese big miners have very large hashrate, I think ltc is unfair coin.
hero member
Activity: 1568
Merit: 507
August 19, 2016, 02:54:15 AM
#21
For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.
YIz
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 502
August 19, 2016, 01:35:07 AM
#20
LTC so far, it seems that there is no innovation, and I personally think that the price of LTC is significantly higher than the value of LTC

LTC was designed with the idea of being conceptually different from Bitcoin, thus most of the codebase is similar to Bitcoin. But we have some differences against Bitcoin that maybe be advantageous. For example we have a tx fee system which makes the Bitcoin tx spam attacks too expensive to carry out.

But you should take a look at the roadmap for Litecoin Core on litecoincore.org.

Yeah you are certainly the litecoin dev now. haha.
full member
Activity: 299
Merit: 100
August 19, 2016, 01:32:00 AM
#19
LTC so far, it seems that there is no innovation, and I personally think that the price of LTC is significantly higher than the value of LTC

LTC was not designed with the idea of being conceptually different from Bitcoin, thus most of the codebase is similar to Bitcoin. But we have some differences against Bitcoin that maybe be advantageous. For example we have a tx fee system which makes the Bitcoin tx spam attacks too expensive to carry out.

But you should take a look at the roadmap for Litecoin Core on litecoincore.org.



Quote
Litecoin Core Roadmap 2016

Developers: Warren Togami, Charlie Lee, Adrian Gallagher, pooler, shaolinfry, Xinxi Wang, Kunal Jaiswal

Websites - https://litecoin.org/, https://litecoincore.org/

Twitter - @litecoincore

Litecoin Core is the Litecoin reference client. Featuring ‘full node’ capabilities to fully download and validate the Litecoin blockchain as well as wallet functionality to manage transactions. Litecoin Core is the most feature rich client out there and contains all the protocol rules required for the Litecoin network to function. This client is used by mining pools, merchants and services all over the world for its rock solid stability, featureset and security.

Litecoin Core v0.13.x will be a major release featuring many protocol level improvements, code optimizations, the ability to roll out several soft forks at once and the greatly anticipated segregated witness innovation. Some of the most notable features include:

Faster signature validation using the libsecp256k library developed by Bitcoin Core developers.
Wallet pruning to reduce block size storage.
Memory usage improvements including better mempool filtering of transactions.
Inbuilt Tor control socket API support if Tor is running and also stream isolation for Tor communication.
Functionality to reduce upload traffic.
Segregated Witness to allow for greater transaction output and mitigation of transaction malleability.
ZMQ support - ZeroMQ is a high performance asynchronous messaging library, aimed at use in distributed concurrent connections. Litecoin will support ZMQ for broadcasting block and transaction data.
Hierarchical Deterministic wallets - Litecoin Core will support hierarchical deterministic wallets also known as HD wallets.
Obfuscated blockchain data Several antivirus applications detect the Litecoin stored blockchain data as a malware threat. Litecoin 0.13 will obfuscate the blockchain data to rid these false positives.
This update will also see the Inclusion of several BIPs to prepare Litecoin for upcoming innovations to do with the Lightning Network and create/use more complex smart contracts, these include:

BIP9 - This BIP allows multiple soft fork changes to be deployed in parallel.
BIP32 - This BIP allows Litecoin Core to support hierarchical deterministic wallets.
BIP68 - This BIP allows relative locktime enforcement through sequence numbers.
BIP111 - This BIP extends BIP 37, Connection Bloom filtering, by defining a service bit to allow peers to advertise that they support bloom filters explicitly. It also bumps the protocol version to allow peers to identify old nodes which allow bloom filtering of the connection despite lacking the new service bit.
BIP112 - This BIP is a proposal to redefine the semantics used in determining a time-locked transaction's eligibility for inclusion in a block. The median of the last 11 blocks is used instead of the block's timestamp, ensuring that it increases monotonically with each block.
BIP113 - This BIP describes a new opcode (CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY) for the Litecoin scripting system that in combination with BIP 68 allows execution pathways of a script to be restricted based on the age of the output being spent.
BIP130 - This BIP adds a new message, "sendheaders", which indicates that a node prefers to receive new block announcements via a "headers" message rather than an "inv".
BIP133 - This BIP adds a new message “feefilter”, which serves to instruct peers not to send “inv”s to the node for transactions with fees below the specified fee rate.
BIP141 - This BIP defines a new structure called a “witness” that is committed to blocks separated from the transaction merkle tree.
BIP143 - This BIP contains the logic for signature verification for version 0 witness program.
BIP144 - This BIP contains the logic for new messages and serialization formats for propagation of transactions and blocks committing to segregated witness structures.
BIP152 - This BIP add compact block relay to reduce the bandwidth required to propagate new blocks.
The Litecoin Core developers aim to have this version released by September/October.

Litecoin shares the same P2SH address format as Bitcoin (addresses beginning with a 3). This has caused some confusion for Litecoin users. We will look into introducing a unique P2SH address prefix.

In the longer term, we will do extensive research and development into flexcap blocksize limit.



On the other hand, Litecoin 0.13 will not include some controversial additions to BTC such as RBF (replace-by-fee).

EDIT: added missing 'not'.
full member
Activity: 189
Merit: 101
August 18, 2016, 11:47:12 PM
#18
LTC so far, it seems that there is no innovation, and I personally think that the price of LTC is significantly higher than the value of LTC
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1048
August 18, 2016, 11:03:13 PM
#17
If it's not a "premine" then what would you call it? Maybe we could call it a "one year mining head start due to lack of awareness advantage"? Regardless, early adopters are HEAVILY compensated and ideally that curve would have been more gradual. I'm not complaining, I just want to be apart of the most "fair" system there is.... CONSIDERING how badly we're all getting fucked by our current global monetary system.  

Early adoption, as you have said. The early bird gets the worm, in this case, a large clusterfuck of creamy, delicious value. This is about as fair as it's going to get; early bitcoin adopters took the ultimate risk with adoption. This was the first crypto. There was absolutely no guarantee this would ever come to fruition.

This is the level of reward associated with that level of risk. Had bitcoin failed, all that time and resource would be gone with no recompense.

Also, I have no beefs with LTC. I'm really ambivalent, I actually like the sphere as it is, with a ton of competing assets. Im more concerned with the electronic value store part of it; the underlying technology means little to me if the price is stable, the network is sound, and the confirms are fast. If TRUMPCOIN became bitcoin overnight, I would shrug, and begin using TRUMP. I apologize if it seems I have been attacking LTC, certainty not my intention. It's one of the good guys Wink

And yes, banks are the god damned devil, as is PayPal.
Pages:
Jump to: