Topic: What exactly is wrong with LTC? - page 2. (Read 6653 times)

I will check it out Thanks.

@sublime:

Got to BTC-e.com, deposit via Liqpay (1% fee added by Liqpay, 1% fee added by BTC-e) with a CC (I use the Paypal Debit Card that runs as credit, so I only pay .5% net fees because of my cash-back). You can make two $250 deposits per day via that method. That should be plenty if you only need a small supply and wish to pay little to no fees for them. Even if you have one of the crappy, newer PP Debit Cards that only gives 1% cash back, you can't beat only paying 1% fees to get LTC. And...no one will worry about you trying to scam them for Paypal.

Also, spot for Paypal is ridiculous. Paypal carries risk, so above spot would have to be offered. Other methods MIGHT get you closer to spot. Either way, I'd just do what I mentioned above to build your LTC chest.

-Moose

GUYS I WILL BUY YOUR LITECOINS! If anyone is interested PM me. I will pay spot price with PayPal. I want to start selling them on ebay. I am really interested in growing it. I have about 200 customers now that I could be selling them to. If you wont take PP, I will buy with other methods for a lower price. I make my living on ebay so I always have PP it is the most convenient way for me to buy. We have sold BTC on ebay for the last 6 months my store is northoutboards. So mine those bitches and lets get it out there.   

Okay...Interesting. I'm familiar with some of these concepts, especially in terms of sha256 hashing. I appreciate you taking the time to cover this. I believe those opencl allocation tricks are still maturing, perhaps....Anyways, It will be interesting to see what the new GCN memory management optimizations yield alone.

  Maybe someone with an nvidia farm (smallluxgpu has changed the GPU render scene, though) will take you up on the offer, it sounds like you have a bit of untapped performance to work with for CUDA-specific scrypt hashing.

However, kernel development isn't exactly stagnant on the opencl side either  



"I'm currently busy preparing for ASICs for BTC" best of luck!

No, I can't personally improve on the reaper kernel because it does funky shit to work around the fact you can't allocate memory properly to the extent required to do so much parallel work with scrypt. However CUDA does allow you to allocate ram in a reliable fashion in much greater quantities and in layouts you desire without resorting to tricks. What I lack is the motivation and the incentive to start investigating what that would yield. I'm currently busy preparing for ASICs for BTC... and as I said, I can't guarantee what magnitude of improvement it would offer. The thing is that sha256(sha256()) as used by bitcoin mining is very easy to predict the effects of and there is no way to work around the fact that nvidia's integer performance sucks 1st and has no rotate function 2nd (and even adding rotate in Kepler will not be enough to offset the 1st).

Sorry, I was still editing.

So, would you say the reaper kernel is not able to be improved, or do you just lack the motivation? This is a semi-loaded question,  



abbyd, makes sense in theory, I guess. Emotionally driven trading might nullify some of that possible stability though.

Extensively...

However, on that note, it is prudent to observe that "diverse exchange markets
with coins based on different hashing algorithms should create stability" ...

I highly doubt it would yield the results you expect, but I would be interested in hearing more.

However, I have no interest in funding a project based on 1) pure speculation and 2) something that needs to be licensed by people attempting to utilize that hardware's compute functionality for commercial purposes.


"found it has scope for doing things with memory that can't be done with openCL" Care to explain this more fully? How deeply have you examined the opencl documentation?


Anyways, I think opening up the actively mining and available hardware base would be advantageous in the long run, regardless of my views on certain products and the underlying code.

Actually I toyed with some native CUDA (i.e. NVIDIA only GPU code) recently and found it has scope for doing things with memory that can't be done with openCL. While the integer performance on Nvidia cards is significantly below that of the AMD cards, approximately 96% of the calculation time in scrypt, by my profiling measurements, is spent on memory operations. I think there is scope for a Nvidia only CUDA kernel that would perform quite well compared to the OpenCL kernel that is currently used by both AMD and Nvidia cards on cgminer+reaper. How well I can't say, but I can say it would be a lot of work, and funding me to code it would be very expensive since I don't really care much about LTC, but I do enjoy coding (especially when funded). I also can't guarantee that it would somehow magically make nvidia cards better LTC miners than AMD. However someone else might find the idea interesting to pursue.

All algorithms will fall to advancements. Making scrypt more 'memory intensive' (isn't it more about amount/bus width/latency?) or leaving the parameters as they were would only delay the inevitable, at best. In fact, it could have easily made the situation worse, leaving the field open to highly specialized hardware domination (high initial costs offset by extreme increases in hashrate).  I've seen claims on here that the current implementation is leaving the field open for FPGAs... That's entirely incorrect.  Yes, you can technically mine with them. No, it isn't very fast and the initial cost eliminates the efficiency advantage.

Specialized FPGAs may change the landscape slightly. LTC-scrypt ASICs will remain prohibitive for a long while yet.



Also, I'm really tired of hearing about you children and your ScamRoad. Some of us do live in the real world and aren't incapable of finding entertainment (or whatever you're doing on there ) without the assistance of unknown internet people, you know.

hostile.. not resistant...

luke JR touted it as resistant. EG impossible.
and i seen the epic drama of the wiki edit war. its also well documented.

in the end its now 2013 and people CAN and DO mine litecoins using GPU's so trying to say litecoin is GPU resistant is a moot point. so using old out of context comments from 14 months ago in an attempt to try to keep the userbase within bitcoin is simply a worthless path to try walking. so give users their freedom.

its all about context.

and thank you coblee i got no issues with you

Next franky1 will be attacking coblee for being a "bitcoin superfan".  Franky1 you can't fix stupid so I won't try.   It wasn't Luke Jr stating LiteCoin has GPU hostile it was essentially everyone. It is obvious if you read the actual launch thread.

Sorry, the homepage will need to be updated. Litecoin was supposed to be a GPU-hostile coin. I was mistaken and believed ArtForz that mining on GPUs would be hard. Turns out, the scrypt parameters that ArtForz chose were not memory-hard enough. And when mtrlt wrote an efficient GPU miner and released it, it was pretty clear that mining on GPU is about 10x the speed of mining on CPU. It's not the 1000x different like it is for bitcoins, but it's still enough to cause a lot of GPU miners to start mining litecoins and making CPU-mining not worth it.

I have thought about upping the parameters to make the algorithm more memory hard to combat GPU mining. But that would cause a hard fork and I'm not sure how the users would take that. After thinking about it for a while, I decided to not do that mainly because of the impending Bitcoin ASIC release. One of the original goals of Litecoin was to release a coin mined by a different architecture than Bitcoin. That way, it will avoid the fate of Namecoin, where GPU miners would jump on Namecoin mining when it was profitable and abandon it when difficulty adjusts. This left Namecoin in a hole and made it such that it took months for difficulty to drop back down, and then the whole cycle repeated. You see a little bit of that with Litecoin right now where the difficulty would jump up and down. But with 4x quicker difficulty adjustments, it's not as bad. Namecoin had to resort to merged mining to fix this problem, which I believe kills all ability for that coin to act as a viable currency.

When Bitcoin ASICs come, the difficulty will likely shoot up 100x and GPU mining bitcoins would not be worth it. And a lot of the GPUs would be turned onto Litecoin. This is actually good, because it would help protect the Litecoin network. Mining Bitcoin would then again be on a different hardware mining architecture and we wouldn't see hashrates shifting from one coin to another due to fluctuations in price and difficulty.

Oh well, "CPU-specific mining" means "litecoin is not just for CPU mining"?

actually i and a few others are in talks with quite a few merchants and services to expand the crypto currencies into mainstream.

how about 25,000 bricks and mortar businesses all in one swoop. if things go in the direction as planned. and the great thing about it is, that i personally am not limiting it to just litecoin or just bitcoin. i give the merchants a choice.

don't believe me that 25,000 merchants in one swoop is possible? then maybe  i shall just leave this link here as the simple answer to just one of the avenues (hint: bottom left of page see how many merchants that service links to)

just-eat.com

the reason i say this is from actual merchant discussions and not armchair activists forum FUD, merchants find litecoin more appealing, and silk road is not a promotional highlight of bitcoin in the real world.

so please give it a try. talk to some merchants, get them on board to any crypto currency you please. just dont try restricting peoples freedoms, using false information.

as that is ultimately the opposite of what cryotcurrency is about, freedom


most of 2011?? what a shame that litecoin was 'born' in late 2011. and luke JR edited and kept re-editing the wiki about litecoin in november 2011. sorry i have to say it one more time

lol, sorry, couldn't help myself. its obvious that you are a bitcoin superfan only here to try provoking issues to make people with valid points seem invalid, but you misunderstanding of what was read. lets give it a word.. hmm the context.. of what what said, makes superfans look the fools.

saying litecoin is GPU resistant by using other peoples posts is just such a sofa activists failed attempt at reducing peoples perceptons of something, and reducing their choices. everyone knows people can mine litecoin with GPU. so why even bother to continue to highlight litecoin as GPU resistant. take things into context next time.

the events of the luke Jr and his superfans attempts to hoard the bitcoin userbase happened nearly a year before i signed up to bitcoin talk.
so maybe i do read the history, and maybe i do know the facts. and maybe i do put things into context also.

those 'litecoin fans' you speak of were not touting litecoin as a 'you cannot mine using GPU'. they were touting litecoin as a coin that is able to create coins without the NEED to buy expensive GPU just to be profitable..

much like what is happening now with bitcoin. people are flocking to litecoin because soon ASICS will be the only effective way to mine bitcoin for profit. so the GPU users, much like the CPU users of yester-year will flock to the coin they can profitably mine with, without needing to buy expensive equipment to stay in the game.

Hey franky1 since you joined in Sept 2012 did you ever think that the forum existed prior to that date?  For most of 2011 Litecoin was touted by its supporters and developers as being "GPU hostile".  Most of it is still in the old threads.  You trying to rewrite history a year and a half later just makes you look like an idiot.

in short
coin for coin you will get more litecoin per x number of computational cycles then you would bitcoin.

it does not state that litecoin is just for CPU mining.

this is again an attempt at using information wrongly to say its impossible to mine litecoins using a GPU for profit.

If LTC offered better value to SR sellers (in terms of liquidity, stability, and security) they would switch to LTC.  The idea that someone the fact that there is no negative media attention is completley backwards.  There is NO media attention.  Note sure if you are aware but people bought and sold certain contraband online long before the SR.  It was was just more difficult.  Western Union, Liberty Reserve, etc.  The SR exploded in popularity because it used Bitcoin, not because the SR operators were trying to force Bitcoin adoption but .... because Bitcoin worked.  It provided value for users because it did what it was intended to.  If LTC did it as well or better the SR (and clones) would jump on that band wagon in a heartbeat.

"all i am saying is litecoin is a lot less of a headache swaying people away from the media propaganda."
So your have a long list of major businesses you were able to sway.... Of course not.  Nobody* has even heard of LiteCoin and likely never will.

*essentially nobody