Presumably whoever wants to collect the bounty or bounties?
Which reminds me, what exactly are the current bounties for such things?
-MarkM-
Topic: What is the point of Litecoin if Bitcoin is THE cryptocurrency? - page 2. (Read 8147 times)
Some people here didn't get the message that should make them at least a bit nervous.
Litecoin's source hasn't been updated for > 8 months now (except for some minor little things). The current litecoin-core contains vulnerabilities which have to be fixed as soon as possible. At the same time we have no sign of life from the only person who seems to be capable of doing this (coblee). Is he still interested in maintaining and updating the source? If not: who will do that work instead?
Litecoin's source hasn't been updated for > 8 months now (except for some minor little things). The current litecoin-core contains vulnerabilities which have to be fixed as soon as possible. At the same time we have no sign of life from the only person who seems to be capable of doing this (coblee). Is he still interested in maintaining and updating the source? If not: who will do that work instead?
Very well said, infoporter.
+litecointip infoporter Ł0,50
+litecointip infoporter Ł0,50
The coin envy in this thread is outrageous.
[..]
[..]
People are fighting Internet Explorer-Netscape Navigator wars here
Fully agree with your post!
The coin envy in this thread is outrageous. I mean really guys, we are changing history here, let's all get along at least... The more cryptocoins the better if you ask me. Decentralize the decentralization.
I believe in a world full of different levels of computing power, other cryptocoins such as Litecoin will remain very viable alternatives to Bitcoin, as the difficulty level for mining and cost of Bitcoins will continue to rise. Perhaps smaller less popular cryptocoins will become popular in less developed nations where not everyone is running 2+ AMD video cards, or ASICs to mine coins, and they can actually mine for or invest in those coins. I could even foresee other cryptocurrency being developed in the coming years, possibly not even a fork of Bitcoin that will further challenge fiat currencies around the globe.
Honestly, if the Bitcoin developers did not want to see alternative coins being created from Bitcoin, then they shouldn't have released the source code. That defeats the whole purpose though right? Very simply put, continuing to bash other alternatives to Bitcoin is not helping the cryptocurrency movement as a whole at all. It makes it look very immature and childish as a community, and defeats the purpose of open source software. Some people don't like certain aspects of Bitcoin, so they change something and release it as XCoin. That's how open source works!
I believe the true nature of the original Bitcoin software was an "experiment" right? The experiment seems to be very successful, as it has not only created a currency worth $90+ USD per Bitcoin currently, but it has also spawned a whole subset of emerging alternative cryptocurrencies on top of that. Why don't we all just sit back, enjoy the damn ride already, and PLEASE quit whining about who's coin(dick) is the biggest. Who is to say that Bitcoin will be the first and the last successful cryptocurrency? That would be a very narrow-minded viewpoint, especially coming from technically savvy individuals.
Long live all cryptocurrencies and the freedom to choose which one you want to use!
I believe in a world full of different levels of computing power, other cryptocoins such as Litecoin will remain very viable alternatives to Bitcoin, as the difficulty level for mining and cost of Bitcoins will continue to rise. Perhaps smaller less popular cryptocoins will become popular in less developed nations where not everyone is running 2+ AMD video cards, or ASICs to mine coins, and they can actually mine for or invest in those coins. I could even foresee other cryptocurrency being developed in the coming years, possibly not even a fork of Bitcoin that will further challenge fiat currencies around the globe.
Honestly, if the Bitcoin developers did not want to see alternative coins being created from Bitcoin, then they shouldn't have released the source code. That defeats the whole purpose though right? Very simply put, continuing to bash other alternatives to Bitcoin is not helping the cryptocurrency movement as a whole at all. It makes it look very immature and childish as a community, and defeats the purpose of open source software. Some people don't like certain aspects of Bitcoin, so they change something and release it as XCoin. That's how open source works!
I believe the true nature of the original Bitcoin software was an "experiment" right? The experiment seems to be very successful, as it has not only created a currency worth $90+ USD per Bitcoin currently, but it has also spawned a whole subset of emerging alternative cryptocurrencies on top of that. Why don't we all just sit back, enjoy the damn ride already, and PLEASE quit whining about who's coin(dick) is the biggest. Who is to say that Bitcoin will be the first and the last successful cryptocurrency? That would be a very narrow-minded viewpoint, especially coming from technically savvy individuals.
Long live all cryptocurrencies and the freedom to choose which one you want to use!
All this guff about resistance to better hardware is just plain rubbish.
When the scrypt algorithm was first used I argued that it would be reasonable to do it in GPU.
It was hotly argued that wasn't possible - it was supposedly only possible on CPU.
Well ... that was clearly wrong
The resistance is only the fact that the income from LTC mining is dismal.
If there is enough monetary force to make people invest in the production of faster hardware, then it will happen.
While LTC is a failure, value wise, it wont happen.
If one day it becomes valuable, it will happen.
define "better hardware". if by "better hardware" you mean custom hardware like fpga and asic then you are wrong.When the scrypt algorithm was first used I argued that it would be reasonable to do it in GPU.
It was hotly argued that wasn't possible - it was supposedly only possible on CPU.
Well ... that was clearly wrong
The resistance is only the fact that the income from LTC mining is dismal.
If there is enough monetary force to make people invest in the production of faster hardware, then it will happen.
While LTC is a failure, value wise, it wont happen.
If one day it becomes valuable, it will happen.
scrypt requires memory. period. there is no known way to get around this (besides various time-memory tradeoffs which are probably possible, but this is expected and doesnt really give any advantage to anyone). the person (he has since left the scene) who picked the parameters for scrypt in litecoin missed a few things, and claimed (and this led others, including the main dev afaik/iirc to do the same) that gpu mining would not be economical in litecoin. this obviously turned out not to be the case, but just because someone thought (or led others to think) the scrypt parameters they picked provided things it didnt does not mean scrypt is flawed.
scrypt was MADE to make parallelization much, much less economical (again because of the memory requirements) and as far as anyone knows publicy, this is still the case, and it will continue to be the case until someone either comes out with a paper, or publicy prove they are able to pull it off by doing it in practice.
i expect custom hardware to have an advantage over gpu mining but it will not be anywhere even close to the scale in which it happens in bitcoin.
Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?
It was my understanding that we avoided the problem by simply never upgrading the software beyond 0.6.3c. Your userbase makes for a better testnet than our userbase because it's larger.
My impression of the bug leading to the fork was that 0.8.0 allowed the mining of blocks greater than the allowable size in the older clients, and that the adoption of 0.8.0 by half the network was what led to the fork. If I'm wrong, please correct me (you'd be the one to know).
If 0.8.1 works well, we will probably see an update to the client for it later this year.
Edit: Reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0050 , I see this may affect Litecoin
Can we use a file called DB_CONFIG in the Litecoin data dir that contains
Code:
set_lg_dir database
set_lk_max_locks 120000
If so I will give the heads up to pool ops
No!!!!
The DB_CONFIG workaround effectively forces a hardfork from the default BDB limits of all Litecoin clients. Everyone has to do this at the same time in order to ensure that they keep up with the blockchain. Note that the Bitcoin alert tells miners to NOT do it until May 15th for this reason.
Edit: Coblee decided to just wait for 0.8.x to fix this problem.
- It's always good to have an alternative. Remember the bitcoin hardfork recently? If Litecoin stays one version behind Bitcoin we will have Litecoin as a back up and Bitcoin as a test network.
Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?
The plan that I've heard expressed is to stay one version behind Bitcoin for the time being.
The potential issue is larger in scope than merely the accidental fork we witnessed between 0.8.0 and previous versions on March 12th. There exists a difficult but possible "reorg attack" that can cause litecoin-0.6.3 nodes to hardfork from each other. All current Litecoin clients have this self-consistency issue. This necessitates Litecoin to prepare for a Bitcoin May 15th-like hardfork.
coblee earlier did express a desire for Litecoin to remain "one version behind Bitcoin" as a conservative maintenance strategy. However, since a hardfork for the BDB issue is required anyway, he seemed to agree to upgrade directly to 0.8.x in the next release. He wanted to wait and see what happens after Bitcoin's May 15th hardfork before proceeding.
If unable to rebase 0.8.x and be fully confident in it soon, Litecoin should consider releasing a new build of 0.6.3 with a similar hardfork patch that increases the set_lk_max_locks limit for all users on a particular future date. The risk would be very small for such a minor patch release since the testing was already done for Bitcoin.
Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?
It was my understanding that we avoided the problem by simply never upgrading the software beyond 0.6.3c. Your userbase makes for a better testnet than our userbase because it's larger.
My impression of the bug leading to the fork was that 0.8.0 allowed the mining of blocks greater than the allowable size in the older clients, and that the adoption of 0.8.0 by half the network was what led to the fork. If I'm wrong, please correct me (you'd be the one to know).
If 0.8.1 works well, we will probably see an update to the client for it later this year.
Edit: Reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0050 , I see this may affect Litecoin
Can we use a file called DB_CONFIG in the Litecoin data dir that contains
Code:
set_lg_dir database
set_lk_max_locks 120000
If so I will give the heads up to pool ops
Hi Team,
I'm about a week into researching Bitcoin. I really think Bitcoin has great opportunities for growth and own 203.
My question is about Litecoin...how or why is there a point to Litecoin if Bitcoin turns out to be THE cryptocurrency?
It's a HUGE deal for a site (in my mind) to say that they accept Bitcoins for payment. Why or what influence these same sites to accept Bitcoin and Litecoin?
I just don't see the point of Litecoin, because I don't understand the point.
Especially with something like Bitcoin leading the way. In my opinion Litecoin doesn't have much of an advantage for the AVERAGE person. Sure I've heard that it's faster for confirmations...but I feel that for most people those extra 5 mins or so doesn't really matter.
What are your thoughts?
I'm about a week into researching Bitcoin. I really think Bitcoin has great opportunities for growth and own 203.
My question is about Litecoin...how or why is there a point to Litecoin if Bitcoin turns out to be THE cryptocurrency?
It's a HUGE deal for a site (in my mind) to say that they accept Bitcoins for payment. Why or what influence these same sites to accept Bitcoin and Litecoin?
I just don't see the point of Litecoin, because I don't understand the point.
Especially with something like Bitcoin leading the way. In my opinion Litecoin doesn't have much of an advantage for the AVERAGE person. Sure I've heard that it's faster for confirmations...but I feel that for most people those extra 5 mins or so doesn't really matter.
What are your thoughts?
I just see Litecoin (and all crypto-currencies that are clones of Bitcoin) to be a ponzi scheme that early adopters uses to buy Bitcoins. There are lots of GPU miners that no longer make profit mining Bitcoins that switched to mining Litecoin just to buy Bitcoins, how do you call it?
ASIC resistant is not a feature, nothing in this world is ASIC resistant, just most costly to develop. The fact that Litecoin is "ASIC resistant" makes their network more vulnerable to attacks.
I'm ok with competition but currently Litecoin offers nothing of value that Bitcoin already don't offers, and no, faster confirmations are not a selling point for me when you trade the network security for it.
Maybe in a future Bitcoin could face a true innovative competitor, but at the moment i see nothing worth on the horizon.
I think you read too much dumb posts and can't make an opinion for yourself so gave two opposing reasons....
Yes, i'm just stupidly biased... and yes, i only read dumb posts... Please, show a little of respect or i will report you.
I said nothing is ASIC resistant or ASIC "immune", it just take more work and resources to make those ASICs. AND i said that excluding ASICs from the equation is a bad idea from Litecoin network security.
Litecoin wiki reads: "Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs) meaning that a malicious entity need only produce a small batch of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined".
Maybe you see advantages i'm unable to see, or maybe is you are smart than me. Anyway my post was only my personal opinion and i think i'm not offending anyone, much less calling stupid other people.
Sure your last message makes more sense and is what you should have written. However, IT IS NOT what you have written. The fact you somehow kinda wanted to dodge that should make you understand where stupid comes from.
- It's always good to have an alternative. Remember the bitcoin hardfork recently? If Litecoin stays one version behind Bitcoin we will have Litecoin as a back up and Bitcoin as a test network.
Ummm.... speaking of the hardfork, has a version of Litecoin been released yet that fixes the problem?
The plan that I've heard expressed is to stay one version behind Bitcoin for the time being.
All this guff about resistance to better hardware is just plain rubbish.
When the scrypt algorithm was first used I argued that it would be reasonable to do it in GPU.
It was hotly argued that wasn't possible - it was supposedly only possible on CPU.
Well ... that was clearly wrong
The resistance is only the fact that the income from LTC mining is dismal.
If there is enough monetary force to make people invest in the production of faster hardware, then it will happen.
While LTC is a failure, value wise, it wont happen.
If one day it becomes valuable, it will happen.
When the scrypt algorithm was first used I argued that it would be reasonable to do it in GPU.
It was hotly argued that wasn't possible - it was supposedly only possible on CPU.
Well ... that was clearly wrong
The resistance is only the fact that the income from LTC mining is dismal.
If there is enough monetary force to make people invest in the production of faster hardware, then it will happen.
While LTC is a failure, value wise, it wont happen.
If one day it becomes valuable, it will happen.
what's the point of euro if usd is THE currency?
what's the point of in-n-out if McDonald's is THE fast food?
what's the point of silver if gold is THE bullion/investment?
what's the point of diaspora if facebook is THE social network?
and i could go on, and on, and on....
Do we want a higher network hashrate at the cost of it being concentrated in the hands of fewer people (asic, fpga, other custom hardware), or a somewhat lower network hashrate spread out amongst a much broader variety of people (gpu, cpu, other "normal" hardware)?
Do we want to try to make custom hardware much less advantageous at the risk that someone might find a way to make them cost-effective anyway?
Do we want the developer to keep tinkering with the code at the risk (as shown in bitcoin) of causing unforessen consequences? if not, do we then want people thinking he might have abandoned the project ?
what's the point of in-n-out if McDonald's is THE fast food?
what's the point of silver if gold is THE bullion/investment?
what's the point of diaspora if facebook is THE social network?
and i could go on, and on, and on....
Yes, i'm just stupidly biased... and yes, i only read dumb posts... Please, show a little of respect or i will report you.
I said nothing is ASIC resistant or ASIC "immune", it just take more work and resources to make those ASICs. AND i said that excluding ASICs from the equation is a bad idea from Litecoin network security.
Litecoin wiki reads: "Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs) meaning that a malicious entity need only produce a small batch of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined".
Maybe you see advantages i'm unable to see, or maybe is you are smart than me. Anyway my post was only my personal opinion and i think i'm not offending anyone, much less calling stupid other people.
The world is never that simple, things are rarely outright better in all possible ways without some sort of disadvantage. you have to make trade-offs.I said nothing is ASIC resistant or ASIC "immune", it just take more work and resources to make those ASICs. AND i said that excluding ASICs from the equation is a bad idea from Litecoin network security.
Litecoin wiki reads: "Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs) meaning that a malicious entity need only produce a small batch of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined".
Maybe you see advantages i'm unable to see, or maybe is you are smart than me. Anyway my post was only my personal opinion and i think i'm not offending anyone, much less calling stupid other people.
Do we want a higher network hashrate at the cost of it being concentrated in the hands of fewer people (asic, fpga, other custom hardware), or a somewhat lower network hashrate spread out amongst a much broader variety of people (gpu, cpu, other "normal" hardware)?
Do we want to try to make custom hardware much less advantageous at the risk that someone might find a way to make them cost-effective anyway?
Do we want the developer to keep tinkering with the code at the risk (as shown in bitcoin) of causing unforessen consequences? if not, do we then want people thinking he might have abandoned the project ?
Hi Team,
I'm about a week into researching Bitcoin. I really think Bitcoin has great opportunities for growth and own 203.
My question is about Litecoin...how or why is there a point to Litecoin if Bitcoin turns out to be THE cryptocurrency?
It's a HUGE deal for a site (in my mind) to say that they accept Bitcoins for payment. Why or what influence these same sites to accept Bitcoin and Litecoin?
I just don't see the point of Litecoin, because I don't understand the point.
Especially with something like Bitcoin leading the way. In my opinion Litecoin doesn't have much of an advantage for the AVERAGE person. Sure I've heard that it's faster for confirmations...but I feel that for most people those extra 5 mins or so doesn't really matter.
What are your thoughts?
I'm about a week into researching Bitcoin. I really think Bitcoin has great opportunities for growth and own 203.
My question is about Litecoin...how or why is there a point to Litecoin if Bitcoin turns out to be THE cryptocurrency?
It's a HUGE deal for a site (in my mind) to say that they accept Bitcoins for payment. Why or what influence these same sites to accept Bitcoin and Litecoin?
I just don't see the point of Litecoin, because I don't understand the point.
Especially with something like Bitcoin leading the way. In my opinion Litecoin doesn't have much of an advantage for the AVERAGE person. Sure I've heard that it's faster for confirmations...but I feel that for most people those extra 5 mins or so doesn't really matter.
What are your thoughts?
I just see Litecoin (and all crypto-currencies that are clones of Bitcoin) to be a ponzi scheme that early adopters uses to buy Bitcoins. There are lots of GPU miners that no longer make profit mining Bitcoins that switched to mining Litecoin just to buy Bitcoins, how do you call it?
ASIC resistant is not a feature, nothing in this world is ASIC resistant, just most costly to develop. The fact that Litecoin is "ASIC resistant" makes their network more vulnerable to attacks.
I'm ok with competition but currently Litecoin offers nothing of value that Bitcoin already don't offers, and no, faster confirmations are not a selling point for me when you trade the network security for it.
Maybe in a future Bitcoin could face a true innovative competitor, but at the moment i see nothing worth on the horizon.
I think you read too much dumb posts and can't make an opinion for yourself so gave two opposing reasons....
However LiteCoins are just a copy of BitCoin.
Not really a copy. They did some tune ups, but the model is the same.
... and now y'all are going to accuse me of spreading FUD, so I'll go away and shut up).
Not really. That's THE biggest issue that has prevented me from investing more into LTC. Many others have same feeling.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" can only help you go that far ...
Same for me. As far as I know coblee abandoned the project some months ago. Then Greedi called himself lead-dev and made some minor text-file-changes in the repository. Coblee came back in February and said he'd continue developement. But nothing really happend since then. I'd be really happy about some new info from coblee about the development-progress.
reading between the lines from the forum posts below doesn't improve my confidence either:
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1169.0.html
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,973.0.html
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1424.0.html
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1521.0.html
I still like litecoin, but as soon as enough people realize that there's no more progress it will be doomed to fail.
Okay, but that's not an excuse for using LTC to treat your rear, coin police says it's not innovative enough.
It may or may not be innovative enough, however the innovation belongs to ArtForz and tenebrix, not litecoin.
https://github.com/ppcoin/ppcoin/wiki/History-of-cryptocurrency
LOL @ "coin police"
+litecointip bitcool Ł0,50
+litecointip bitcool Ł0,50
What's the point of opening this topic if you already think Bitcoin is THE cryptocurrency?
The slogan should be changed to "Litecoin: For butthurt GPU miners."
Disclaimer: I wrote cgminer.
Disclaimer: I wrote cgminer.
LMFAO......so true.
I am the butthurt GPU miner!!
Jump to: