Topic: Litecoiners: Idea to make Litecoin importance skyrocket in Bitcoin ecosystem - page 2. (Read 13385 times)

Amen.... Bitcoin needs LTC more than LTC needs BTC.  Period.

And thanks to asics, BTC's need for help from LTC has just quadrupled.  There is zero reason for LTC to become BTC's bitch now.   It's bitcoiners that need ltc help not the other way around.  And unless it's mutual. I see no reason to help them as they've kept us down from the beginning.

Bitcoiners in general need to wake up.

Bitcoin is testing the waters for Litecoin. In a way, Bitcoin development is more risky than Litecoin, because if BTC break due to a recent development problem, it will not affect Litecoin.

As an example, look at the last fork that happened to Bitcoin. Litecoin wasn't affected and we know how to prevent it since Bitcoin tested it before Litecoin did.

I actually want to see what makes Litecoin valuable, as then I'd probably want to buy some and undertake efforts to support it.  The way I see it, if nobody can say what makes Litecoin valuable in a clear and concise manner, then the simple assertion that it's valuable isn't persuasive.  Its nominal price having gone up on the market charts doesn't make it valuable.  I can't argue in favor of Litecoin's value at the moment even if I try, other than to point out that it has some enthusiastic supporters getting some attention.  That's pretty much it... the value is in the enthusiasm, which alone is of limited usefulness, and importantly, permanence.


Sure.  Litecoin doesn't need anything per se.  But surely the Litecoin community values being valued, and there's no reason to assume that there wouldn't be an interest in being valued more.


This will happen less, and will be less irritating, when the Litecoin community can be defensive with meritorious answers based in rational argument, framed in terms of how Litecoin benefits society above and beyond Bitcoin, rather than arguments based on market charts and Litecoin's presumed value to those holding Litecoins.

Coblee has stated that he's going to keep Litecoin one release behind Bitcoin. How does that make Litecoin not dependent on Bitcoin 

My apologies Casascius, I did not mean to turn this into a Bitcoin versus Litecoin war of words. If you can't see what makes Litecoin valuable at this point in time, then I do not think you ever will, so there's no need for me to rehash old arguments here.

At the end of the day, your idea would benefit both Litecoiners and Bitcoiners, and I think that's great. I just don't think Litecoin needs this as much as you are implying. I also don't think it should be 100% up to Litecoin developers to implement something like this, Bitcoin developers should help with it as well because it greatly benefits them too. Perhaps you should post your OP here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0

You may get more serious responses there and less trolling... us Litecoiners are used to Bitcoiners coming over to the ALT forum and putting Litecoin down and spreading FUD, so naturally we are defensive when it comes to our kid, as bitcoiners are to Bitcoin. You don't seem to be the average Bitcoin troll, so I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

Like I said dude.  Keep yapping.  LTC is going to Gox whether you like it or not.  LTC does not need BTC.  BTC actually needs LTC for security as you've already stated in your OP. 

Cheers

So, my assertion that Litecoin's future is tethered to Bitcoin's is in error, because of one day's worth of market activity?  (or one month's? or one year's?)

Actually on LTC/BTC today litecoin has actually gained on bitcoin.  Meanwhile BTC is dropping like a stone and LTC is not.

So much for being tethered.

Cheers.

I can understand that.  Old school bitcoiners don't see what problem Litecoin solves, but can see how it's a distraction to Bitcoin.


Responses like this focus on the wrong things.  Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.  The presumption you're offering is that I'm proposing something like this for personal financial gain, oblivious to the big picture as to why cryptocurrency was created in the first place.


You seem to underestimate just exactly how tethered Litecoin is to Bitcoin.  Unless Bitcoin sinks due to an attack that Litecoin is immune to, Litecoin is going down with any systemic/sociopolitical/reputational Bitcoin failure, because it is Bitcoin with a different logo.


Perhaps old school bitcoiners define value a different way.  A solution to a world problem has value.  A cure for cancer has value.  A cure for cooties does not.  A hypothetical solution to a nonexistent problem does not.  I think I have already listed off both of the good traits of Litecoin of material significance and if there are any more, they're worth taking the time to point out, so as to dispel the appearance that they don't exist.  Litecoin may as well capitalize on its actual strengths... arrogance that it's better than Bitcoin would not be one of them.

The fact that people learning about Bitcoin for the first time also hear about and become interested in Litecoin is a rational explanation for its rise in nominal value.  That doesn't make it any more inherently valuable for any reason beyond increased awareness and popularity.  The preschooler star on Honey Boo Boo is more "valuable" than she was two years ago, but not for any intrinsic attribute of her own.


Seems to me that the value of a Litecoin is strongly in lockstep with the value of a Bitcoin.  Litecoin needs Bitcoin more than Bitcoin needs Litecoin... that's already a fact today.  Fortunately I think the majority of LTC users understand this, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I've read that Litecoin will be forever Bitcoin minus one in the development stakes. A project like this could really test the Litecoin devs and show that they're capable of doing something without seeing how the Bitcoin devs did it first.

1) slightly faster transactions (to accommodate the needs of...... )

2) an ex-CPU friendly - now GPU friendly - POW (to accommodate all the GPU miners who are about to be pushed out of business)

3) A general sense of hope for those who failed to get on the bitcoin train in time (to accommodate all those who failed to get on the bitcoin train in time)

4)  

...

Well, I admit, technically, that makes 3, hence, "many"  


Which "these" "things" ?

being bitcoin's big and, as far as I can tell, not really necessary, backup tape ? That's some ambition, there

There are new projects being announced for LTC every day and there are a lot of exciting things are in the works. Also, more and more websites and stores are accepting LTC by the minute.

Bitcoin wasn't developed over night and neither will Litecoin. It is a slow and steady process, but there's definitely development going on and you'd be foolish to think otherwise.

let's try to keep egos out of this. i couldnt care less what bitcoiners think of litecoin as long as this is beneficial for both sides...and if you look at the big picture, YES, it COULD be highly beneficial to all involved.

nobody is trying to give litecoin a sense of purpose. litecoin already has a purpose. many purposes actually. only those who chose to willfully be blinded are unable to see it.

and the reason why litecoin is "required" is simple: litecoin is still small/early enough to be adopting these kinds of things. It's much easier to make it happen in litecoin than to make it happen in bitcoin.

edit:
How is preventing large malicious reorgs/chains that spring out of thin air and ruin all confidence in bitcoin "not beneficial" ?

I could get behind this fork, it sounds like a great idea.

So far, it is basically a rather contrived and complicated block backup mechanism so you could counteract and/or recover from a "bad" reorg.

I am not convinced it would benefit anyone.

What development 

Back on topic I think it would be beneficial to both Bitcoin and Litecoin.

Lol, nice try but Gox has already confirmed LTC is going to their exchange.  Once this happens ltc will have plenty of publicity. 

It seems your op thread only would benefit BTC.  Unless BTC does this too as a mutual partnership with LTC, my vote is no to LTC being BTC's bitch.

I don't care if you make physical litecoins or not.  Someone sooner or later will.  Sorry you choose to ignore and lose an entire market.  But that's your choice.

Cheers.

 


I am aware of those facts.

However, I believe you missed the part where I explicitly stated the qualifier "malicious".

Detecting a reorg is trivial. Determining whether it is an okay reorg or a "bad" reorg does not seem so.
I don't see why Litecoin is required here.

I mean, I realize that in this scenario, it is, essentially, a large backup tape.

But what exactly prevents BTC from, just, you know, keeping the reorged-away blocks for a little while longer and pleading the node operator to investigate "suspect" reorg when it occurs ?
Both solutions provide, essentially, the same functionality - block material is kept around for a while longer, so that human-op can decide which side of a fork he likes the best. But one requires mutual inter-operation between two cryptocurrency nets, while the other does not.

I, so far, fail to see the advantages to the "inter-operation" scenario beyond "let's give litecoin a sense of purpose" and "it would be a shame if GPU miners starve".

Sorry to be rude, but I really can't stand the way old school bitcoiners act and talk about Litecoin.

This is what your OP sounds like to me: Litecoiners... protect my big stash of Bitcoins, after securing my nest egg, then in return I will make a lot of money by selling physical Litecoins to you guys.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good idea. I am somewhere in the middle of the two extremes:
Litecoiners/Bitcoiners: That's a wonderful idea!
Litecoiners: We don't need Bitcoin, nor are we going to be Bitcoin's subservient guard dog, let the ship sink!

Old school bitcoiners seem to just not get the value and use that LTC can have in the future. You blindly ignore the good things about Litecoin that so many people already see (which is why it's up to 2.30 from .07 months ago.) I'll spare you the time of listing off some of the good traits of Litecoin because I know you know them all already, you are just blinded by your big ole pile of Bitcoins.

IMHO Litecoin is doing just fine without this and it will continue to do just fine without this. Bitcoin needs this more than Litecoin needs this. If you can't see the usefulness in Litecoin at this point in its development, then just get to steppin'... we don't need you.

/rant

Part C is where the process would break down and where litecoin would shine.  In March, the "heavy hitters" in IRC had the benefit of being able to reliably contact and influence the majority of the hash power in a short amount of time and persuade them to implement the desired solution, and they had the benefit of a ready-made solution (a version to roll back to) so that nobody needed to do anything objectionable.  Without both of those, the devs in IRC would have had far less power than they appeared to enjoy.

If a core feature of Litecoin were that mining nodes can accept operator(user) influence, those mining Litecoins get a decentralized pulpit from which to announce their collective opinion as to which fork of the Bitcoin chain is correct.  Even in the absence of that, Litecoin can implement automated validation rules with respect to the Bitcoin chain that would be too cumbersome for Bitcoin to adopt... example, Litecoin can be programmed to automatically refuse to endorse large Bitcoin reorgs without gaining explicit operator consent, which for a well-connected Litecoin node is typically a good policy.

Bitcoin community has the option to adopt, or not adopt, the Litecoin consensus, just in case it's wrong (default is to not adopt).  By doing this, it leaves Bitcoin with a semi-automated oracle to suggest a singular, neutral, consensus-based "Plan B" recommendation for future Bitcoin fork situations.  For example, on March 12, the chain reorg that was deliberately orchestrated was desirable... the Litecoin community would endorse the target branch through operator UI, and in the event Litecoin block chain failed to gain consensus favoring the branch we were trying to accept, Bitcoin miners would react by selecting "do not listen to Litecoin" as input.