Topic: ppcoin market crash (Read 3397 times)

I see none of the litecoin fanboys dared address this directly, its more true now than ever. This Silver to Gold argument is fundamentally flawed, solely due to litecoin having higher fees than bitcoin.

Lets use the fabled "buy a can of coke with LTC", Current LTC price is ~$4.10 USD and a can of coke here costs ~$1.30.
That becomes: 0.3170731707317073 LTC or 0.318 LTC. Now depending on your coins age and the current network congestion to buy that can of coke its going to cost you to 0.01 LTC 0.1 LTC in fees, usually 0.1 in my experience.

So does a 41c to 4.1c USD fee or  fee seem at all reasonable for buying a can of coke ?
A> No of course its not.

Another issue facing LTC right now is botnets, thanks to ASIC's pushing bitcoin difficulty out of their reach with CPU miners we are seeing mass migrations to LTC mining, while good for network security do you really want the bulk of future LTC funds being owned by simple thieves ?

Im still a litecoin fan despite my criticisms but I don't see it lasting much longer in its current form.

I agree with what Casascius said in the quote. First we would need a decent sized name.. trusted company to setup a system like that. There is still a bit of work to be done before bitcoin can truely become more mainstream for internet payments.

That said.. once the infrastructure is in place and protocols setup, I think it would be a lot easier for companies wishing to get into the game to do so.

It's a point of debate, there are also proposed workarounds, check this thread out:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3689/will-transaction-fees-eventually-make-microtransactions-not-worthwhile

Or if you prefer the Tl;DR:

Curious, how does bitcoin not support micro transactions?

I agree with this.

In my opinion the only chance of a successful alt-coin taking off is if it fixes real immediate problems and enables commerce and privacy scenarios not possible or diffficult with Bitcoin.  Whether any pre-mine is a deterrent would probably depend on the value added.  The reason most of us aren't turned off by Satoshi and other early adopters becoming filthy rich is because of the gigantic value they delivered to all of us.  Satoshi didn't just tweak constants or address theoretical future problems, he delivered a working system that is a quantum improvement over what was there previously.

As D&T pointed out there are real problems in Bitcoin today that, if solved, could successfully bootstrap a new currency.  For instance, if a "Bitcoin 2.0" came out which did everything that Bitcoin does plus elegantly supported microtransactions and true anonymity, I bet you the incentive would be there for at least some segments of the population to start using it.

For market correction it's need 10 BTC

Latest transaction on the exchange is now .000135  ...  wow. That's a serious crash.

Was 4+ people afaik, there's been lots of discussion already about this.

Who is person that has generated 1,9 mln in the first day after  PPC was annonced ?

exactly, that's the point.

you can't buy brain cells, you can only buy the product produced by brain cells. Of course, if those 100 stupid people (probably with smaller brains) become your salves or voluntarily work for you, that's a problem that no magic coin can solve.
 

So would I ... but wait ... i'm loosing brain cells at the moment (past that magic age )so my mining power is becoming less with every day... suppose it does account for the fact that older people do not need as much money as youngsters... less life to live and all... and would reward the smartest of us.... but u'd still end up with someone buying brain cells from 100 stupid people just to get a better hash rate

It amazes me that many LTC critics always conveniently "forget" why it was created and why scrypt was chosen to be the algorithm.

Let's recap: LTC was created because people were not happy with the concentration of power in bitcoin money creation (i.e. mining), as it became more and more expensive and specialized to mine BTC.

If early bitcoin adopters were motivated by the desire of escaping from central banks' monopoly power,  litecoin adopters were rebellion against the unfair distribution of money creation process. Ideally, I'd like to see an algorithm that  directly correlates to how many brain cells you have   before that is discovered, scrypt seems to be the next best thing in crypto currency world.

I predicted the emergence of alternative concurrency before any of the alt-chain appeared https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.34552, I also predicted there may be national or regional crypto currencies, Russian Coin seems to be such an attempt. 

The jury is still out on whether they will succeed or not, but I'd keep an open mind and don't want to embarrass myself in the future, just like those btc critics came on board when bitcoin first gained some publicity.
 

They key point of my original post is this: any alt-coin that has not been embraced by merchants within a few months of launch is doomed to fail. This is because once the early miners have accumulated a significant number of coins at low difficulty, new participants are less and less motivated to jump in. They understand that they would essentially be giving free value to the early miners, exactly the same as a huge pre-mine. This effect is completely independent of any differentiating factors like hashing algorithm, demurrage, proof of stake, etc.

Obviously this is my opinion, and I can't provide any proof beyond the observation that there are no alt-coins gaining value or market share at the moment.

IMHO, the best way to build a new alt-coin would be to build all the infrastructure first - block explorer, mining pools, exchanges, store plugins, online wallets, etc. Then restart the chain at a high enough difficulty to give everyone a fair shot at getting coins from the beginning. I think it would be quite difficult to get the required level of buy-in unless the current primary cryptocoin, Bitcoin, is subverted or fails in some spectacular way.

First off you shouldn't assume things. I asked the following question as simple as that, A QUESTION:

"Oh so you saying the following doesn't imply that BTC should have a monopoly?"

No assumptions. Just wanting to know what you meant.

Wow D&T I got you riled up lol.

Calm down buddy. It was only a question.

My point: People give something value. Not just you D&T. You are part of the process, but you don't dictate the outcome. Enough said.  

I see why you are ignored.  You simply don't read.


^ indicates BTC won't be a monpoly.  If something vastly superior comes along it will replace BTC.  If something bring enough utility it will co-exist.  LTC will do neither.

Imagine someone made LTC2, LTC3, LTC4, LTC5, LTC99 do you think they would co-exist with LTC?   Say they just changed the hashing algorithm on each and slightly tweaked some variables.

See LTC2 could be LTC silver and LTC3 could be LTC copper and LTC4 could be LTC tin and LTC99 could be LTC poop.  What would you speculate would happen?

(Note it is a rhetorical question as I won't see the answer.  Your need to find "the greater fool" is both boring and depressing.  It is like watching someone try to run a con for $5 and a pack of smokes).

D&T you missed one important fact:

People give it utility, which gives it value. Price is just a bi-product of the valuation process.  

People -> Utility -> Value

Oh so you saying the following doesn't imply that BTC should have a monopoly?


I think having a second or third choice is healthy. In a sense there is a need. People chose for there to be a need.

Oh and about your comment saying "nobody is going to put resources into developing products/services for LTC"....well good job speaking for everyone.

Once again you are an individual. You are entitled to your opinion but speaking for everyone is back at square one...speculating.


Edit: If you don't really care where we put our money and that LTC is going to die eventually, remind me why you are posting here again?  Thanks!

I never said BTC should have a monopoly.  BTC could be replaced or other currencies could co-exist with it.  LTC will do neither.  It is a sad little copy with a few values changed.  The hashing algorithm of choice is pretty much irrelevant to the end user.    BTC has some limitations and competing currencies could produce VALUE (as in utility) by being good where BTC is bad.  One example is micro transactions.  BTC is poorly suited and if it became significantly larger (say money supply worth $10B) it would be even worse.  A crypto-currency optimized for micro transactions would be incredibly useful and interesting.  Now a truly optimized micro transaction would require some real research and design.  


Well people give it price.  Utility gives it value.   A bag of rotten poop might get pumped up to some insane price but its utility is essentially zero and in the long run price will correct towards that.  BTC has utility and as people see it they are willing to price it higher (pay increasing amounts of USD for some BTC).  LTC has price because it can be used to sucker others out of their wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory). I am not the crypto-Police.  Put your wealth anywhere you want, but LTC doesn't have a future.  It will be great toy for speculators and have lots of rises and falls but nobody is going to put any resources into really developing products and services for it.  Hell Bitcoin is mostly undeveloped.  Someone with real money could do some really interesting things.  This "mini me" clone with <1% of the marketshare ... nobody cares.

LTC's purpose isn't to replace BTC. It is another option for people to use. If they don't want to use it that is fine. Just like there are choices with every other type of product. Hoping that BTC keeps a MONOPOLY on the market of virtual currencies of its kind is a bit unrealistic.

Remember when barely anyone accepted bitcoin? What was that like 2.5 years ago? Well litecoin isnt even 1.5 year old. Perhaps you shouldn't speak too soon.

Yes the point about divisibility is correct. But that is not the only thing that gives bitcoin its value.

People give it value.

Well almost nobody does accept it and it has almost no value so just fix my post with an "almost".  Way to get hung up on the word "value".  My point was BTC doesn't need a silver.  Silver existed as a currency due to limitations in using physical gold is commerce.  Bitcoin with divisiblity into 21 quadrillion base units lacks that limitation.   LTC in theory could replace BTC but there is no need for it to co-exist.  That is why virtually no merchants accept it, there are no dual currency clients, nobody talks about converting some BTC into LTC for spending and then merchants converting their LTC into BTC for savings, etc.  The whole "silver to Bitcoin's gold" is a fairytale. 

Something might replace BTC but it would have to be significantly better.  LTC isn't it.