Topic: Why Litecoin can't reach Bitcoin price? (Read 2562 times)

As much as i like to see that day come, BTC and LTC are competing currencies that offer almost the same feature
LTC needs to hit critical mass/adoption like BTC for that to happen... but how?

I dont think it can because it is bitcoin that has a slight mining variation + bitcoin has less coins.  Its pretty simple really it would take a whole new coin with huge improvements to out compete bitcoin.

Bitcoin the first crypto and litecoin is like the 5th?

It's not that it can't, it's that it hasn't. Seriously it's all about what people value it at.

Because hitler didn't/couldn't conquer the world despite of his power and willingness,instead he committed suicide,

There was less choice in those days. That's why all the GPU power was concentrated at Litecoin. It was a totally different crypto world back then.

But now there are ASIC miners which need homes, Litecoin is one current home for many of them.

The fact is that Litecoin's price-tag MUST rise as production increases, otherwise production has to slow which means a percentage of current and new scrypt mining has to migrate to different currencies, increasing their production cost and price-tag instead.

The only way for both production cost and price tag to continue rising is by increase in adoption, which takes lots of hard work and effort.

Perhaps people need to ask themselves why Litecoin rose in price in the first place.

In the bitcoin mining GPU days everyone was happily mining Bitcoin, Litecoin had but a few adopters. Then along came the Bitcoin asics. Suddenly GPUs were redundant, miners simply found another coin to point their GPU power at, which happened to be Litecoin.
I for one did the same. But I wasn't interested in Litecoin. The whole point was to continue the fun of GPU mining and dump the coins for Bitcoin which is what I wanted. I suspect many other miners were doing the same.

Now of course there are countless other coins to point GPUs at, so Litecoin isn't really needed all that much anymore, at least for me anyway, can't say about others.

Two different opinions, innovation drives adoption vs adoption driving innovation. Both can be true at the same time, and both are beneficial


Each person considers different things as 'better', ease of use and simplicity are often the biggest drivers, google with one box and one button, and apple within minimal ui are fair examples.

Nice to see an interesting discussion.

The more supportive of Bitcoin/Litecoin someone is, the more supportive of that statement they tend to be. It doesn't change the fact it is an opinion. I have a different opinion, and I know I am not alone.. I am just more vocal than most people.


Exactly, this was my main point at the end. The features may not be bringing in a ton of people right now, but I am sure they are bringing in some people. Once these services and their benefits are more widely known, advertised, and improved upon, I am speculating that they will bring in a lot of people to crypto currencies that otherwise wouldn't have partaken. The crypto currencies that have these features will be the ones that benefit most from this. The ones with the most popular features will win out over those with more "gimmicky" features. On top of that there will be another level of the crypto currencies with the most well implemented of those most popular features will win out over those with the most poorly implemented of the popular features.

You guys are entitled to your opinion and this is mine. I get annoyed that most people don't acknowledge that what they say is speculation and opinion when talking about this stuff... the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute guys are the worst example of this with their articles about alt coins and appcoins which are one side of the debate passed off as fact. No one is doing a good job at debating for the other side when it comes to the issue of adding features on top of a crypto currency and being innovative... I am pretty much only one of the few sticking up for this side. That is because I believe my opinion is correct, probably just as much as you guys believe your own opinions are correct. I think most people are probably just tired of debating this issue with Bitcoin/Litecoin supporters, because it is a never ending debate.


This line of thinking assumes that the top 5 coins will always be the same- I very much disagree. Bitcoin and Litecoin are not "too big to fail"- no entity is and no entity ever will be. Once consumers are more educated about which options are available, they will pick the better option IMO. This just has to do with marketing, liquidity, infrastructure, the network effect, and consumer awareness as to why they aren't already picking the better options. These dynamics are just that- dynamic. They can and will change in the future. Sure, it is confined to a niche group at this point in time, but it will not always be that way as cryptos expand their user base and more people are educated on what else is out there. Admittedly it is hard to tell what alternative coin will rise above the pack, but over time it will become more clear and I am 99% certain that crypto currency will not be Litecoin.

Before any technical or social considerations are taken in to account, you need to simply look at the currency supply.

If Litecoin were to have a price-tag of $500, then $14,400,000 of new currency would be produced each day, $5.25bn a year.

This would entail a daily trading volume of roughly $76million per day (or higher), and a market cap well above $10billion - immediately, and increasing every day after.

If the price-tag you mention were to happen then both adoption and market cap would have to be at least twice that of bitcoin, growing to 4x over ~20 years. To even begin such a process would require a 10,000% rise in both production-cost and price-tag.

It would also require roughly 75 Terrahash minimum to secure, over 75x more scrypt hashing power than currently exists in the world, that's if all of it was on litecoin only.

The coin supply has written in stone that Litecoin requires 400% more growth in every aspect (adoption, investment, hardware production, mining) day on day than bitcoin to maintain an equivalent price-tag, this has not been the case and thus it requires a 10000% leap to get on par, then 400% day on day thereafter.

That's a big ask of any currency. Perhaps infeasible.

AdamSmith (famous economist!) is on the right tracks, be fair, look at what you can do to increase or encourage adoption and usage, that is the only metric which improves anything.

There is no merchant adoption because LTC team didn't bother to reach out to merchant.

They can simply implement and create another bitpay or coinbase clone for LTC, that alone should increase merchant adoption.

Because BTC is the reference coin and will remain like this for life. No other coin will take BTC's crown, this isnt a myspace->facebook situation sort of thing, forget about that, thats just having no clue about what we are dealing with on there.

One of the biggest reasons why it cant is just because of the demand and lack of merchant adoption. If it had a lot of merchants getting behind it it would do a lot better. At the moment its kinda redundant.

In this world, fast fish eat slow fish.

Litecoin is nothing but a similar clone to bitcoin. "Asic resistance" was the only reason for its existence a year ago, that is no longer true now.

Confidence and desirability are low.

Thats it.

If litecoin survives long enough it could reach that price range.

 

Some are still hoping for prices similar to Bitcoin. This one is useless and it is surprising it is even holding up. It will die a slow death.

Because its a shitty clone that contributes nothing new.

uh? there are asic for bitcoin too

litecoin is just a clone, not even the first one, that's why