Topic: Say bye to ripple, prepare to say bye to litecoin - page 2. (Read 7286 times)

Thanks for your argumentation

What about the network effect? Meaning the value of the network goes up with the amount of participants?

Litecoin has faster transactions and if this alone is sufficiently important to a sufficiently large number of people then indeed it will succeed. But all those people look also at where can I use it? And then Litecoin is far inferior to bitcoin, even with faster transactions. So my argument is, for an altcoin to get those sufficient amount of people, it needs to offer many more advantages over the competitor. Comparable to facebook, windows, or ebay, the more amount of users, the more valuable it becomes and even with serious disadvantages over a new product/service, people will still chose for that due to the network effect.

One important advantage may build a niche market, but does not stand a chance to take over the far larger network. Many important advantages however do stand a chance to take over a much larger network.   

I don't hold any altcoins because of reasons mentioned. However, I was also resistent to bitcoin and it took time for me to see the truth in the argumentations. I might miss something in the altcoins too, hence this discussion.

Indeed. If Litecoin is to prevail over Bitcoin because of its 2.5m block time then Litecoin will itself be toast because Feathercoin and Chinacoin are both much faster than that. One or both of those would prevail instead.

Translation: "I have more Litecoins than Bitcoins."
LOL 

XRP is as "overpriced" as BTC was in early 2011 when it went to almost dollar parity.

I have to admit though that the market disagrees with me. Litecoin is being valued by the market. It's valued around 1/20th of bitcoin. All things being equal this will probably continue in the future.

I don't see the practical use yet though. Maybe Litecoin will be needed for smaller transactions? (if bitcoin indeed allows smaller transactions less and less over time)

I have to admit though that the market disagrees with me. Litecoin is being valued by the market. It's valued around 1/20th of bitcoin. All things being equal this will probably continue in the future.

I don't see the practical use yet though. Maybe Litecoin will be needed for smaller transactions? (if bitcoin indeed allows smaller transactions less and less over time)

Indeed. If Litecoin is to prevail over Bitcoin because of its 2.5m block time then Litecoin will itself be toast because Feathercoin and Chinacoin are both much faster than that. One or both of those would prevail instead.

It appears you never really knew Ripple or Litecoin, and you wanted to say bye without even meeting them?

Translation: "I have more Litecoins than Bitcoins."
LOL  

It's the value of Bitcoin that is crashing.
Last week 20,000 xrp could buy 1 bitcoin, now you need less than 10,000 - the value of xrp has doubled against bitcoin.
You need to swap the axes.

(NB - I think these prices are completely irrational  - 7000 people trading their gifted xrp ignoring the other 99.7billion yet to be released to the public).

But Ripple isn't worthless.

My opinion on Ripple is that it's not needed. When you lend bitcoins or fiat, you are also creating debt out of thin air, and when the debt is repaid, it vanishes. Sure a system that allows you to lend/borrow bitcoins based on reputation might have it's use but such system does not need it's own kind of currency like ripple. The market value of ripples is crashing and for good reason I believe. Litecoin shares the same faith in my opinion. I remember a book I read at the time from Sony or Philips and there the mantra is, a new technology needs to have at least 7 big innovations for it to have a chance to succeed. Bitcoin has that over fiat and gold, Litecoin does not have that over bitcoin. Litecoin is a copycat with very few innovations over bitcoin. In a network environment where the value comes from the amount of participants, copycats do not have a chance.

From an investor's perspective the altcoins are like low end real estate. In a real estate boom it goes up even more than quality real estate, but it loses much more value when the inevitable crash comes. And chances are that it will never recover but will be bulldozered down, as no one needs it anymore. Whereas the quality real estate, although highly undervalued, will continue to stand as there continues to be a need for it. I might be totally wrong so counterarguments are very welcome.


Ps: Also note that the analogy made for litecoin that it is silver versus bitcoin gold is not valid. When gold was money, there was not enough of it, so silver was also used as money. There are enough bitcoins to serve the whole world.

I did read your post. I don't know about ripple, but in relation to altcoins I agree with your point in general, but wanted to make the point that actually some altcoins have advantages over bitcoin. I don't want to refute the argument in general that some altcoins won't last, just around those altcoins that have some real-world advantage (not just mining advantage) over bitcoin. As for reading a book and needing 7 advantages... not really (just because sony or some other company says it is so, doesn't make it true - betamax? minidisc?).

One important advantage is enough for something to survive, but it has to be sufficiently important to a sufficiently large number of people. I would argue that speed of confirmations may well be such an advantage, not least because it also has a knock-on effect on security (http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/1cssqr/the_math_why_litecoin_is_more_secure_than_bitcoin/ ). Is litecoin "faster enough" to survive? Maybe not, but then maybe there will be another altcoin that will take over. Litecoin already has quite a number of participants but time will tell whether it keeps them.

If you genuinely believe it's dead, put your money where your mouth is - sell it to destruct (or me)

My opinion on Ripple is that it's not needed. When you lend bitcoins or fiat, you are also creating debt out of thin air, and when the debt is repaid, it vanishes. Sure a system that allows you to lend/borrow bitcoins based on reputation might have it's use but such system does not need it's own kind of currency like ripple. The market value of ripples is crashing and for good reason I believe. Litecoin shares the same faith in my opinion. I remember a book I read at the time from Sony or Philips and there the mantra is, a new technology needs to have at least 7 big innovations for it to have a chance to succeed. Bitcoin has that over fiat and gold, Litecoin does not have that over bitcoin. Litecoin is a copycat with very few innovations over bitcoin. In a network environment where the value comes from the amount of participants, copycats do not have a chance.

From an investor's perspective the altcoins are like low end real estate. In a real estate boom it goes up even more than quality real estate, but it loses much more value when the inevitable crash comes. And chances are that it will never recover but will be bulldozered down, as no one needs it anymore. Whereas the quality real estate, although highly undervalued, will continue to stand as there continues to be a need for it. I might be totally wrong so counterarguments are very welcome.


Ps: Also note that the analogy made for litecoin that it is silver versus bitcoin gold is not valid. When gold was money, there was not enough of it, so silver was also used as money. There are enough bitcoins to serve the whole world.

Did you even read my post? Please try to refute the argument.

Ripple is a joke, please do not compare it to Litecoin, it really just makes you look clueless: http://ripplescam.org/

Litecoin provides real value and will ride BTC all they way to the top.

Ripple will be gone in a year or two. Its a bad idea that nobody needs.

Not today