Topic: Litecoin Is NOT Dead (It Is Just Dying A Slow Death) - page 5. (Read 28336 times)

Nice backtracking there buddy. Seems like I'm not the only one that "gives themselves enough wiggle room to back out of their statements."  

Sure, it's not the only reason for a company's success obviously. They could have a very innovative product, and be scammers at the same time, killing their chances of being successful. Being innovative certainly helps companies be successful though. To deny that is just you being dumb.

Ya keep being a sockpupet everyone knows NXT and ipo coins are garbage.

NXT is the future of crypto. 1000000x better than Litecoin could ever dream of being.

Comparing NXT to Litecoin is like comparing Superman to a squirrel.

Nice backtracking there buddy. Seems like I'm not the only one that "gives themselves enough wiggle room to back out of their statements."  

Sure, it's not the only reason for a company's success obviously. They could have a very innovative product, and be scammers at the same time, killing their chances of being successful. Being innovative certainly helps companies be successful though. To deny that is just you being dumb.

I never said they weren't innovative. I said they weren't very innovative as they did not invent something new. Obviously this is my opinion lol.

My point was innovation =/= success as so many including you appear to be claiming here.

learn2write

lol your statement bolding doesn't change your misconception of what supply is and how it relates to difficulty (in your writing).

Let's read what you wrote again for the kiddies:

"Supply stays more or less the same no matter who has control of the hash power or how many hashes they throw at it. That is the whole purpose of adjusting difficulty."


Supply doesn't stay more or less the same. The supply is always changing at each block. The difficulty has everything to do with controlling the inflation of supply and not just the supply as you so eloquently failed to do communicate correctly.

Toyota is successful today because they innovated, maybe you should learn about their history before calling them copy cats. They have a long history of innovating starting with the way cars are mass produced and built to today where they pioneered hybrid vehicles via the Prius.
Honda's history: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/
Honda's recent innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/

Honda got its start innovating the use of auxillary engines in motorcycles and is still today focused on innovation.
Honda's history: http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/index.html
Honda's current innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/

Although Kia didn't get its start innovating products per say, it was the first company in South Korea to make domestic bicycle, motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Today they definitely have a strong focus towards innovating and were innovative in the US market by making vehicles affordable, among other recent innovations.
Kia's history: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovation
Kia's current Innovations: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovation

Maybe you should research claims a little bit before you make them? It took me 5 minutes to look all this up...

This is like the most used reason on why LTC will not "succeed".

Since when does innovation = success and only then?

Ford was an innovator...but along came Toyota, Honda, Kia...etc. They weren't very innovative as they basically copied the idea and layout.

Now had Toyota or the others came up with the idea of the airplane ...now that is innovative. But it didn't require innovation to be successful.

I've posted in other threads that as BTC continues to make the transition from "underground" to "mainstream" (more adoption every day, more wall st. types involved every day, etc.) there is going to be a void. With more acceptance will come more scrutiny & regulation. People who (have) used BTC to buy pot, buy guns, send money across the globe for whatever reason will (at some point) shy away from BTC due to the above.

There needs to be a legit alternative to BTC that is viable. Will it be LTC? My guess is likely not. I just don't see a whole lot from the LTC community in terms of evolution and innovation of the coin.

Which coin is it? No idea, but there are only a handful (if that) that could emerge that are bringing either actual innovation to the table or have a legit community behind it (not going to name names)... but I don't think it will be an IPO coin or a POS coin that proves to be viable long-term.

Supply stays more or less the same no matter who has control of the hash power or how many hashes they throw at it. That is the whole purpose of adjusting difficulty.To debate this point is dumb, just go look at the block frequency chart: http://cryptometer.org/litecoin_60_month_charts.html

What you mean to say is that the supply is more centralized towards big players with deep pockets and/or hardware manufacturers than it used to be.


You don't like me making inferences, so why are you allowed to make them? Do you know these large miners personally? How can you be sure it is them that are selling Litecoins and not someone that already owned Litecoins who has recently changed their mind about it?

We'll agree to disagree on that one, ASICs brings centralization. Why would people buy mining equipment if it won't break even due to people with deep pockets and/or the mark up from mining hardware manufacturers? The idea that it's going to magically fix itself over time doesn't make sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to buy mining hardware (in terms of profit), then what is the point? There are very few people that mine just "to protect the network".

This isn't even as centralized as I am expecting Bitcoin/Litecoin to become. It will get much worse as old money, old money crypto, bankers, and VCs go full throttle on the mining landscape. Due to economies of scale, massive institutions with deep pockets can make a lot of mining hardware much cheaper than what the average miner can buy them for at retail prices.

That is not true. Litecoin is at about a $252 million market cap right now.. I wouldn't exactly say that's "a whole hell of a lot less money" compared to Bitcoin's Feb 2013 market cap of $228 million. Look at February 2013 forward: http://www.quandl.com/BCHAIN/MKTCP-Bitcoin-Market-Capitalization

The arrival of Bitcoin ASICs also made it more centralized, but they did not see a similar dip in price. Go from February 2013 forward: http://www.quandl.com/BAVERAGE/USD-USD-BITCOIN-Weighted-Price

I agree that there are more people around now than in Feb. 2013, but I'm not sure how this makes a difference in the topic at hand. More people are around to buy Litecoin and Litecoin mining hardware, yet the price is falling and the network is becoming more centralized. How does that support your argument?

It has also lost some ground denominated in Bitcoins. You are also making an assumption that no other coin could hold up, as it hasn't happened yet so know one knows what would happen. Again you assume all the dumping is ASIC miners... I think I heard Smoothie himself say he didn't currently have a stake in Litecoin... this is another large assumption as well that it is only ASIC miners dumping. I think personally it is both ASIC miners dumping and market sentiment is shifting. I'd like to state again, Bitcoin's price didn't slip when their ASICs came out, why should Litecoin be given a free pass as to this being the reason for the price falling?

Supply hasn't stayed the same.

You currently have over 30% of the entire network hashrate accounted for by just FIVE wallet addresses (solo miners). Over on Coinotron there are two miners with over 6 GH/s in hashrate each, and the next two on the list each have over 3 GH/s.

That has concentrated an abnormally gigantic amount of the block rewards into a very few hands and they are all making a mad dash toward ROI, before the even larger hardware starts shipping this month and next, reducing their percentage of the network to a fraction of what it is today.

But it is an abnormal condition for so few miners to have so much of the new coin production...and it won't remain the case as the network is taken over by ASICs and the hashrate redistributes to something approximating normal.

The only other coin to have ever gone through this transition is Bitcoin...and it did it at a time when there were a LOT fewer eyes on it and a whole hell of a lot less money involved.

Realistically, no other coin in existence could hold up under these conditions...but Litecoin has not failed. It has lost some ground in price denominated in dollars, but not nearly as much as one would expect, considering the rampant dumping.

And those "obvious" reasons are what?

I believe this has everything to do with sentiment, that is how prices of crypto currencies are established, supply and demand. The demand has gone down over the past 6 months and you can't deny it as the supply stays the same.. that is the point of difficulty.