Topic: What Litecoin means for Bitcoin (and crypto in general) once it's on Mt.Gox - page 3. (Read 8538 times)

They might, but it's too late. It was always too late because there'll only be another then another etc. Unless those entities are willing to exhaust a bottomless pit of resources in pursuit of that (and I can't see why as it makes no sense - only shooting oneself in the foot - but not unthinkable) I think it's more likely that either competition will realign many existing and future cryptos (the ones that don't go to zero) towards similar protocols/technicalities over time or those entities will instead to do the most economically rationale thing and just sell high to buy low before others do.

When 1 bitcoin = $100 

This debate remembers me the never ending discussion about bretton woods and those bored arguments. The title is a clue about what it will be in 50 or 100 years, crypto currencies will replace fiat currencies, and I cant Imagine a world with just one coin, as I cant imagine with a single lenguage.

Litecoin and Bitcoin will not be the end of this, are just the beginning and they are just too young to say nothing. I see Litecoin very promising but is younger than the young Bitcoin. You cant ask for more, they are just the begining and guys try to make some bucks with them, and let people decide what could be, if litecoin kills bitcoin it will be because this currencie wasnt good enough to have his place in the world economy, if bitcoin kills litecoin we can say the same.

Just enjoy the trip, folks  

The alt. coin market is mostly good for Bitcoin!

Currently I'm minning Bitcoin, Litecoin and Digitalcoin 24/7. I've even mined a few BitBars, Argentum and some other alt. coins.

Proof-of-Stake coins like PPcoin should be seen as a true innovation.

A percentage of the alt. coin that I've mined in the past few weeks I've traded up and exchanged on sites like cryptsy.com for Bitcoin. These are quantities of Bitcoin that I could not of aquired by mining Bitcoin in the same period of time. Moreover, I've purchased x4 Block Erupter USB ASIC (thus far) with those very Bitcoins, increasing my own Bitcoin hash rate, thus making a contribution to the Bitcoin economy as a whole.

Alt. coins will allow others to discover, trade, aquire and buy Bitcoin and vice versa. Hardcore Bitcoin supporters should use their old GPU mining rigs and FPGA's to mine Litecoin and other alt. coins, as Bitcoin becomes dominated by ASIC's.

Yes. Some alt. coins are total garbage and will probably just phase out by themselves i.e. there is certainly no need for anyone to collude to destroy others creativity.

I'm sure Satoshi would in fact think that all these alt. coins are really great! It's not all about Bitcoin you know, it should be about supporting crypto-currencies in general. Look at the bigger picture!

I agree but its a "Classic" now  

Also YAC does not have established roots like LTC does and might not ever

Id say BTC LTC NMC

I would not leave out LTC 

Eventually, some entities deeply invested into Bitcoin will (collude to?) exterminate the Scamcoins via 51% attacks.

Perhaps although I don't think so. One of the first questions I get when people ask me about Bitcoin is something along the lines of 'can they be copied and how can we do that?' One of the next questions when they realise there are already alts is something along the lines of 'why are people buying bitcoins then when Xcoin is cheaper'. There's not a very bitcoin-positive answer to that and I'm not sure at all about any long-term network effect under these circumstances when parting with money is concerned. Bitcoin already ignores issues such as relative global purchasing power, it really shouldn't ignore basic market forces in pursuit of a network effect.
But that's exactly what everybody else says about Bitcoin supporters (whether either point is true or not).

To get back on topic, of course Litecoin on Gox will hammer bitcoin (perception if not also price). If it's not gox it's some other exchange and if it's not ltc it's some other alt. Bitcoiners should have been killing alts from day one. But even so that would only have delayed the inevitable. Eventually somebody with bigger pockets and resources than the average bitcointalker would have come along and done it anyway.

I agree for now BTC is the way to go cause no one cares about crypto currencies. Once it starts getting accepted there may be a move for "faircoin" wher everyone gets to start mining at the same time, AFTER THEY REALIZE THEY SHOULD BE MINING

True story. Scamcoin supporters are endangering the progress of the whole effort only for their short-sighted greed.

Bye, bye!

You said it here:


and here:


And also here:


You did add this right after:


which is correct. But your first point, that bitcoin is scarce because there are 'very few' of them compared to the population of the world, is not. It doesn't make a difference if there is only 1 bitcoin in the world economy, or 1 trillion, as long as it is divisible enough where everyone can have a share of the total supply.

I never said 21 million coins is insufficient for a population of 7 billion and you can't quote where I did. This is just another example of you saying something that doesn't match reality. Anyway, I'm tired of the discussion with you. Go ahead and reply with your best as I'm sure you want the last word(s).

If cryptocurrency takes hold, even with multiple blockchains, there will be early adopters that become extremely wealthy. People will buy into it for the same reason they buy into Apple stocks: they value personal financial gains more than they value denying early adopters wealth.

In any case, in the long run, holding a large amount of bitcoins, even in the event of massive success, will be not be as lucrative as owning large amounts of income-producing assets in the Bitcoin economy. The bitcoins will continually be circulated, and those who provide goods/services will constantly be able to replenish their store of coins, while those that do nothing but hold coins will be able to spend their wealth once.

The total market capitalization of a base currency is only a small fraction of the total wealth that exists in the world. Most wealth is not in currency. If Bitcoin becomes HUGE, I don't expect it to be worth more than a few hundred billion dollars. In that case, Satoshi would be worth something in the tens of billions of dollars. That's not any more than the founders of other tech giants like Facebook and Apple.

You are correct that a Bitcoin could be broken down into Satoshi to provide enough currency units to populate the world market's needs for currency.  But will you accept at that time that they say all your BTC will now have the equivalent value of 1 Satoshi per BTC???  Or do you expect the world economy will accept the idea of moving fully to a currency that accepts the idea a few people that were early adopters can hold 1/1000th of the world's economy to themselves.  Satoshi would become richer than a G7 country, as he supposedly owns 800,000 BTC.  It is reasons like this that Bitcoins or any other long established and limited cryptos will not take over as the default world's currency.  No one will go for that idea, no matter how nice you might think it would be.  

I'm not surprised that someone invested in litecoins doesn't think my arguments are very good.


But I never denied that the 'rate of inflation' is a factor in how scarce a currency is. I took issue with your claim that bitcoin is scarce because its 21 million coin supply is insufficient for a population of 7 billion. It wasn't the rate of inflation that you were indicating was the source of its scarcity, but the low nominal number of coins, which in reality is irrelevant.

Your arguments aren't very good to begin with.

Like I said, when it comes to money being specific matters. It so happens rate of inflation can absolutely be a factor in how scarce a currency is, and it usually is, but it's not the only factor as you said it is.

Fine distinction of terms and concepts is important, especially when discussing or formulating opinions on a topic as complex as money.

I was trying to convey the same point in both quotes. You should be above trying to misinterpret and misrepresent my comments to try to discredit my argument.

Nice try.

This


does not equal this:


You should be big enough to admit when you're wrong, not try to save face after I've pointed out how you're in error. When you're talking about money - currency supply, inflation, deflation, measurements (like what 1 bitcoin is), etc. - these things do matter.