Aha I get that it's good, that there are many crypto currencies, so, IXCoin, I0Coin, BBQCoin, DevCoin, LTC all changed parameters, and people that endorse LTC seem to be back that ASIC will make GPU miners choose LTC as opposed to selling up or moving to ASICS?
Topic: What's the difference between LTC and BTC? (Read 6766 times)
I expect that it is likely the main differences among cryptocurrencies will be the uses to which they are put.
Bitcoin has been looking good as a store of value, but that creates a usefulness for something that is not bitcoin but which is liquid; something that preferably does not tend upwards in value as fast as bitcoin or possibly even tends downwards in value or maybe even has a value that is pretty stable in terms of its exchange rates against various fiat currencies, particularly fiat currencies that are widely used.
The biggest advantage I have seen in this so far has been for financing, since the existence of non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies allows people to use their bitcoin as collateral to secure a loan and take that loan in the form of a different cryptocurrency, one that they expect will not appreciate in value as fast as bitcoin has tended to.
This has let people leave their bitcoins securely locked away in capital accounts, collateral accounts or leverage accounts or however you like to term such accounts while still making use of their buying-power.
Of course it is also useful to have more cryptocoins not just two, because for example if people choose litecoins as their non-bitcoin choice and litecoins start going up in value, they will naturally be wanting to pick yet another type of coin to then serve as their "not going up in value as fast as my collateral does" choice.
The saga of General Financial Corp illustrates nicely how having a multitude of currencies to choose from can be useful, as well as illustrating how choosing one that does not suit one's purpose can be a problem. (Basically they had to keep shopping around for refinancing because of exchange rates between the currency they were loaning out and the currency in which their own financing was denominated. Though actually in the end they eliminated the currency exchange rate risk by finding financing denominated in the same currency they were loaning out. A currency that appreciates slower would have been better though.)
-MarkM-
Bitcoin has been looking good as a store of value, but that creates a usefulness for something that is not bitcoin but which is liquid; something that preferably does not tend upwards in value as fast as bitcoin or possibly even tends downwards in value or maybe even has a value that is pretty stable in terms of its exchange rates against various fiat currencies, particularly fiat currencies that are widely used.
The biggest advantage I have seen in this so far has been for financing, since the existence of non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies allows people to use their bitcoin as collateral to secure a loan and take that loan in the form of a different cryptocurrency, one that they expect will not appreciate in value as fast as bitcoin has tended to.
This has let people leave their bitcoins securely locked away in capital accounts, collateral accounts or leverage accounts or however you like to term such accounts while still making use of their buying-power.
Of course it is also useful to have more cryptocoins not just two, because for example if people choose litecoins as their non-bitcoin choice and litecoins start going up in value, they will naturally be wanting to pick yet another type of coin to then serve as their "not going up in value as fast as my collateral does" choice.
The saga of General Financial Corp illustrates nicely how having a multitude of currencies to choose from can be useful, as well as illustrating how choosing one that does not suit one's purpose can be a problem. (Basically they had to keep shopping around for refinancing because of exchange rates between the currency they were loaning out and the currency in which their own financing was denominated. Though actually in the end they eliminated the currency exchange rate risk by finding financing denominated in the same currency they were loaning out. A currency that appreciates slower would have been better though.)
-MarkM-
Basically the main practical difference is that litecoin tries not to share; it aims to eat up more of the world's energy separately instead of make efficient use of energy expenditures that are "already happening anyway".
-MarkM-
This argument is prejudiced. You don't know if the energy consumption is transferred from bitcoin (i.e. the user would have mined bitcoin anyway if litecoin is not around) or is actual extra consumption.
I would venture that the energy consumption would likely happen anyway regardless of the existence of alter currencies. So merge-mining is likely not a significant energy saver. But it does help strengthen Bitcoin's security as more shares of total energy consumption is used to secure Bitcoin, although given its dominance at the moment even this benefit is minimal.
There is no actual difference.
They changed some constants. E.g. block generation rate and maximum money supply. Helps with keeping the source tree in sync with bitcoin 
I know. That why I said no actual difference.
It has nothing you can merged-mine alongside it, so is less efficient at puting your hashing power to as much use as possible.
With bitcoin once you are alrready hashing anyway you might as well hash as many things as you reasonably can all at once using that same hashing, so it is in a sense more "green", you can "recycle" the "work" you spend on it by spending the same "work" on many blockchains at once.
This also means that various schemes to implement bonds and shares and so on can be done "on the side" instead of having to clutter up the main bitcoin blockchain; any of the merge-able supposedly-dead chains could be revived for use with any such schemes.
Basically the main practical difference is that litecoin tries not to share; it aims to eat up more of the world's energy separately instead of make efficient use of energy expenditures that are "already happening anyway".
-MarkM-
With bitcoin once you are alrready hashing anyway you might as well hash as many things as you reasonably can all at once using that same hashing, so it is in a sense more "green", you can "recycle" the "work" you spend on it by spending the same "work" on many blockchains at once.
This also means that various schemes to implement bonds and shares and so on can be done "on the side" instead of having to clutter up the main bitcoin blockchain; any of the merge-able supposedly-dead chains could be revived for use with any such schemes.
Basically the main practical difference is that litecoin tries not to share; it aims to eat up more of the world's energy separately instead of make efficient use of energy expenditures that are "already happening anyway".
-MarkM-
There is no actual difference.
They changed some constants. E.g. block generation rate and maximum money supply. Helps with keeping the source tree in sync with bitcoin
There is no actual difference.
Hi
I know that LTC was originally created for CPU, but now, it's just like BTC - GPU miners make up most of the network and that the hashing function is different but what's the actual difference? Is it just a speculative currency?
I know that LTC was originally created for CPU, but now, it's just like BTC - GPU miners make up most of the network and that the hashing function is different but what's the actual difference? Is it just a speculative currency?
Jump to: