Topic: What happens "IF" LTCs price is higher than BTC? (Read 1807 times)

Mining revenue as a stat is dubious as miners chain hop to maximize revenue and coins routinely change position.  The difference in profitability is merely an indicator of risk and the fact that miners are slow to react.

Try looking at value of money supply
I only looked up the top ten because beyond that we are talking less than 0.1% per coin and it rapidly goes down to negigible valuations.
      
Another way of looking at it.

lol so you're saying every altcoin that is above BTC in profitability percentage is better than BTC?

Even Fastcoin?

Mining revenue has nothing to do with becoming the leading currency.

Most of those altcoins that have a higher profitability percentage than BTC will die in a few weeks/months.

1 BTC vs 1 LTC valuation is not what you should be looking at, its mining revenue per hour.  LTC pays twice as many coins and makes blocks 4 times faster.  This graph on coinchooser is the one to look at, if the LTC % exceeds the BTC % then in my opinion LTC will have become the leading currency.

http://coinchoose.com/charts.php

depends on how low BTC will have fallen to allow for this situation.  If they are both sub $1.00, no ones going to be very happy

Actually I started this thread at SPECULATION....

and was moved to ALT... lol

In that hypothetical case, administrators of bitcointalk.org may erase this subforum out of anger. 

lol if LTC goes higher than BTC, I'll dance with you on the streets. 

The next few months are going to be very interesting indeed.

BTC has been falling pretty rapidly these past few days.

The LTC:BTC ratio has gone up by nearly 0.01 in the past month.

The next few months should be pretty interesting.

With many GPU farms moving to LTC since ASICs are out now, and with Gox adding LTC soon (hopefully), who knows, LTC might be worth something soon

Many of the merchants who accept BTC are either accepting LTC now too or considering it for the future.

ain't that a bit of a reverse?

accepting LTC as payment should go first...

then... the price will go higher...

Maybe then someone will start accepting LTC as payment.

Once again I am not saying "dont use LTC".  Hell it is possible Bitcoin fails and LTC succeeds (improbable IMHO but possible).  I am just pointing out that if LTC succeeds it will be based on its own merits and not due to the dubious rationalizations in this thread (i.e. not enough Satoshis to go around, there needs to be a "silver", Bitcoin will only be used for large purchases for some unknown reason, SHA is broken, etc).

BTW the free market has said that the overwhelming majority of people agree with me.  Both on the relative value of the money supplies and on practicality.  I have never had in buying or selling goods or services (even $5 steam game) had someone who would not accept BTC but would accept LTC.  Maybe that day will come but it hasn't happened yet.  Lots of places however do accept BTC but don't accept LTC.  I bought a $1,200 domain on namecheap using BTC but they had no option to pay for it using LTC ... at least not yet.  

No that had nothing to do with it.  Silver (and Copper) were used because there is a limit on how small gold coins can be used in any practical manner.

The US gold dollar for example is only 75% of the diameter of a dime and weighs about half as much.  Imagine how easy it would be to lose such a coin.  The smaller a coin is the easier it becomes to counterfeit or reduce.  Scales (especially in 1850) are only so accurate.  A coin 0.1 grams light would be very hard to detect but with the US dollar weighing only 1.6 grams it would mean almost 4% of the value had been shaved off.  Worse the average wage in 1850 was $0.18 so a gold dollar represented about 5.5 days of labor.  That would be like today having a coin smaller than a dime worth ~$700.  Now try to imagine even smaller gold coins and imagine doing so with technology (for purposes of minting, validating, exchanging, transporting) circa 1800s.  How would you pay for a penny worth of nails with gold?  Someone is going to mint a 0.1mm gold coin (that is the diameter of a human hair by the way). 



Coins with more base metal were developed because given the constraints of physical tokens it was easier to use larger tokens of less value.



The amount of global currency in on the order of $4T USD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_(currency) ).  That would be ~400 trillion pennies ("cents").  Bitcoin has 2,100 trillion Satoshis (21M BTC * 1E8).  If Bitcoin hypothetically replaced all global currencies (a pipe dream but we can consider this an upper limit) that would put the value of 1 BTC at ~$200,000 USD (2012 dollars) and the value of 1 Satoshi at 0.2 US cents (or 5 S = $0.01).

Still, the divisibility of Bitcoin can be increased if necessary with a hard fork.  If there ever came a time that such increased divisibility was necessary it would be a fork that could be made with overwhelming support (it preserves the value of existing holdings in a non-inflationary manner).  It is unlikely more than 2 quadrillion units will ever be necessary though.  Even today there is little need for divisibilty of the dollar to the 2 decimal places.   It rarely affect pricing.  Have you ever decided not to buy something because it was 1 cent more than you were willing to pay.  The cent simply lives on due to inertia.  Many other countries already use currencies with less divisibility without any adverse effect. 

BTW I am not saying Bitcoin will be the only cryptocurrency, it may have long term competitors with significant share or it may be replaced completely by something superior, or we may see specialized cryptocurrencies develop which carve out a niche (i.e. a CC designed around micro transactions, a CC designed around improved anonymity, etc).  Regardless of what the future holds it won't be because Bitcoin needs a "silver" or that there aren't enough coins to go around.

Well that is just you. It appears the free market has spoken about utilizing a secondary crypto for purchase online.

D&T thanks for the laugh. Hahahahaha

This!

i'ld love to see this happen in my lifetime, but i very much doubt it

If Litecoin goes higher than Bitcoin I will be dancing in the street   "Its peanut butter jelly time!"

Why were both gold and silver used as currencies and not just gold.

Realistically there was not enough gold to go around - If you total the number of dollars in circulation I am sure there are more cents in circulation than satoshi's even when all 21 million coins are mined. If you then totalled all the world currencies and the smallest division of that currency it would dwarf the number of Satoshi's.

Basically there are not enough bitcoins to support a world economy. So unless the upper limit is changed a complimentary currency would be required.

Lower transactions fees for small purchases.  Faster confirmations.  Finally, believe it or not, Litecoin is actually more secure than Bitcoin at the moment when considering the cost to successfully attack the network.