Why the loss of confidence in litecoin? - page 3.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: ?? on ??

Physical point of sales do not wait for credit card confirmations. They don't wait for the bank to accept your check. They don't check the bills aren't fake.

(This isn't necessarily a good thing, there are some ways of fixing it etc.)

You are forgetting that CC and check also use ID and 3rd party verified?
With those, bitcoin point of sale will likely follow the same path.
However there is strong resistance to implementing them for many reasons.

manfred

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1001

Energy is Wealth

There is no loss in confidence the volume in china on 3 exchanges is huge check it out, gox bitcoin volume is weak. The high has been 78 yuan (~USD 13) currently it is over 10USD
Only Goxes inability to function as a money exchange slowing the expansion in other parts outside of china and india.
What options have you got to trade on gox? Bitcoin with bitcoin and bitcoin with dirt (fiat).
Lots of people would give the left nut to be able to buy some litecoins on gox as long as they are so cheap. long term the price will be about a quarter of bitcoins price.
Darkside, russian equivalent of silkroad accepting LTC too now

https://www.okcoin.com/
https://www.fxbtc.com/s/ltc_cny
edit:http://www.btctrade.com/ltc/

Indian exchange dealing with bitcoin/litecoin (just opening)
https://buysellbitco.in/

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on November 21, 2013, 12:49:32 PM

Bitcoins already take too long to transfer.

I've never had to wait more than 5 seconds. Did you report the problem to devs?

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on November 21, 2013, 12:49:32 PM

Bitcoins already take too long to transfer.

Over the internet, the delay is usually fine, because it is quicker than any other way.

At point of sale transactions, other hard money alternatives are better suited.
Don't buy your cup of coffee with virtual bitcoin, use a 1/10 ozt silver piece bitcoin specie.
(coming soon)

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Bitcoins already take too long to transfer.

doctor877

full member

Activity: 896

Merit: 115

Quote from: adamas on November 21, 2013, 11:23:15 AM

Wall Street Journal (Germany): From Litecoin to Freecoin

translate pls?

adamas

legendary

Activity: 1014

Merit: 1003

VIS ET LIBERTAS

Wall Street Journal (Germany): From Litecoin to Freecoin

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Ok have fun with that.

laowai80

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 21, 2013, 03:32:04 AM

Well it is a theory. A dubious one best on wishes and hopes but it is a theory. Read again, BTC miners aren't being greedy it just doesn't make sense to radically expand block sizes. Average fees on paying Bitcoin txs have actually gone down over the last two years. The issue is the large number of free tx and a reluctance on miners to expand block sizes especially for free tx only to have them lose money to higher orphan rates.

Miners actually have very little pricing power. If one miner won't accept a paying tx then another one will and the first just makes less money. With pools it means the first pool is less profitable and miners switch to pools which accept more paying txs.

Yes, it's a theory, but this theory is based on knowing human nature, and human nature has been the same for thousands of years, so it's safe to assume it'll stay the same for a while.

BTC miners aren't being greedy? Yeah, right

They are into mining for a profit or for fun? Some are for fun, I am sure, but most are for profit. I don't want to blame miners here, please don't get me wrong. Users are as greedy as miners. I am just outlining what is most likely to happen next, based on what used to happen previously with other money systems that mankind had invented.

See, you just said it yourself, miners don't want to lose money. Current number of transactions is still too low compared to credit card transactions rates. Just wait for it to increase and you'll see what I mean.

If one miner will accept and process it at a loss, that miner will soon be out of business. Again, just common sense.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Well it is a theory. A dubious one best on wishes and hopes but it is a theory. Read again, BTC miners aren't being greedy it just doesn't make sense to radically expand block sizes. Average fees on paying Bitcoin txs have actually gone down over the last two years. The issue is the large number of free tx and a reluctance on miners to expand block sizes especially for free tx only to have them lose money to higher orphan rates.

Miners actually have very little pricing power. If one miner won't accept a paying tx then another one will and the first just makes less money. With pools it means the first pool is less profitable and miners switch to pools which accept more paying txs.

laowai80

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 21, 2013, 03:24:24 AM

And the LTC miners won't be greedy?

It actually isn't greed on the part of BTC miners. The orphan cost for a BTC miner is 3.3 mBTC per kB of block size. Most tx pay less than that. Miners are reluctant to make significantly larger blocks because it means they actually lose money. If you get 0.1 mBTC per kB of block size and lose 3.3 mBTC per kB of block size due to increased orphans it doesn't make much sense to increase the block size.

LTC has the exact same economics. It just so happens right now it is used for absolutely nothing and thus blocks have a negligible amount of txs. If its tx volume grew it would be looking at the exact same outcome.

Yes, please read what I posted above. LTC will take over just for some time, LTC miners will also be greedy. Then some other alt-coin takes over, until its miners become too greedy, and users switch to another alt-coin for micro-payments. I don't have illusions about human nature, and knowing it, this is the most natural development to occur.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

And the LTC miners won't be greedy?

It actually isn't greed on the part of BTC miners. The orphan cost for a BTC miner is 3.3 mBTC per kB of block size. Most tx pay less than that. Miners are reluctant to make significantly larger blocks because it means they actually lose money. If you get 0.1 mBTC per kB of block size and lose 3.3 mBTC per kB of block size due to increased orphans it doesn't make much sense to increase the block size.

LTC has the exact same economics. It just so happens right now it is used for absolutely nothing and thus blocks have a negligible amount of txs. If its tx volume grew it would be looking at the exact same outcome.

laowai80

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 21, 2013, 03:10:04 AM

Why would including smaller tx make it unuseable? Why would incuding more transaction and thus having a lower cost per tx make it more expensive?

Why is it starting to happen now? Greed? Miners want higher fees. Human nature. Imagine miners have to process 10x, 100x, 1000x more transactions than now? How would they handle it? Of course, they'd first service the transactions with the highest tx fee. I mean, come one, it's just common sense logic. Low fee transactions would have to wait indefinite time in that case. So people would switch to a coin that still has adequate transaction time, more than one coin has a chance to compete, LTC is just the natural first candidate, but there are others waiting for their turn to dance.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

You kinda just imagined up a non answer to fit your always stated conclusion.

It has to stick to large tx or it will become to unuseable? too expensive?

Why would including smaller tx make it unuseable? Why would incuding more transaction and thus having a lower cost per tx make it more expensive?

laowai80

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 21, 2013, 02:50:26 AM

Why would LTC take the niche of micro-payments? The EXACT same economics of orphan rates vs block size apply to LTC. It would be any lower cost for miners to make large LTC blocks as they do for BTC blocks.

In theory one could design a micro tx with the stated goal of having a low processing cost and designed around micro transactions. Nobody has done it, but it could be done. LTC is no better suited for micro transactions than BTC is.

How many thousands of transactions per second in the world do credit card companies process? BTC has serious limitations in this regard, so as it gains more user base, it'll have to stick to large transactions only or it becomes unuseable, too expensive, etc.

Network effect will hit BTC first, LTC will take over the micro-payments niche and be able to process them more efficiently for a while, then network effect will hit LTC, some other alt-coin will take its niche, then some other alt-coin, and so on. That's my vision of it for the next couple of years, given current tendencies, can't predict longer than that, this industry is too dynamic, anything could happen.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: laowai80 on November 21, 2013, 02:35:20 AM

But in the future things could and would change quickly as the number of transactions grows, the fee has to be raised to make it to the top of the list. So my expectations for the next 1-2 years are that LTC will take the niche of micro-payments, whereas BTC will grow into a more heavy-weight category.

Why would LTC take the niche of micro-payments? The EXACT same economics of orphan rates vs block size apply to LTC. It would be any lower cost for miners to make large LTC blocks as they do for BTC blocks.

In theory one could design a micro tx with the stated goal of having a low processing cost and designed around micro transactions. Nobody has done it, but it could be done. LTC is no better suited for micro transactions than BTC is.

laowai80

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 21, 2013, 01:50:38 AM

Quote from: laowai80 on November 21, 2013, 01:42:07 AM

Recently BTC transaction fee that guarantees normal confirmation time has been around 0.0005, which is roughly $0.30 at current price. So, litecoin fee is already lower than the practical BTC fee.

Nonsense. Take a look at a recent block count the number of tx which pay 0.5 mBTC per kB. While there might be one or two out of hundreds of thousands of txs it is utter fud to say 0.5mBTC is needed. The min fee of 0.1mBTC is sufficient. Tx which don't confirm usually have other issues (like having dust outputs, unconfirmed inputs, no fee, fee below the 0.1mBTC threshold, etc).

Bitcoin is ill suited for micro transactions and it is still cheaper (~$0.05 per kB) than LTC now (~$0.16 per kB) and after the fee reduction (~$0.08 per kB)

I admit, I haven't tried to send BTC with a 0.0001 fee recently, just read the forum threads that people had issues with slow confirmations. All my recent 0.0005 fee transactions were fast. But in the future things could and would change quickly as the number of transactions grows, the fee has to be raised to make it to the top of the list. So my expectations for the next 1-2 years are that LTC will take the niche of micro-payments, whereas BTC will grow into a more heavy-weight category.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: laowai80 on November 21, 2013, 01:42:07 AM

Recently BTC transaction fee that guarantees normal confirmation time has been around 0.0005, which is roughly $0.30 at current price. So, litecoin fee is already lower than the practical BTC fee.

Nonsense. Take a look at a recent block count the number of tx which pay 0.5 mBTC per kB. While there might be one or two out of hundreds of thousands of txs it is utter fud to say 0.5mBTC is needed. The min fee of 0.1mBTC is sufficient. Tx which don't confirm usually have other issues (like having dust outputs, unconfirmed inputs, no fee, fee below the 0.1mBTC threshold, etc).

As an example here is a recent large block. It was mined by Eligus which does not include any free tx. It is 608kB and contains 677 transactions
https://blockchain.info/block-index/441261/00000000000000036af9c03ac779286f3f8ce922b9aa1f8c2c51909c1d89cc67

~2% of tx contain a fee of less than 0.1 mBTC per kB
~82% of tx contain a fee between 0.1 mBTC and 0.11 mBTC per kB
~2% of tx contain a fee between 0.12 and 0.19 mBTC per kB
~5% of tx contain a fee between 0.2 and 0.49 mBTC per kB
~0% of tx contain a fee of 0.5 mBTC per kB or more (there are 3 of the 677 tx)
may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Bitcoin is ill suited for micro transactions and it is still cheaper (~$0.05 per kB) than LTC now (~$0.16 per kB) and after the fee reduction (~$0.08 per kB)

laowai80

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: hozer on November 20, 2013, 03:15:10 PM

Cryptocoins have value because people use them for transactions.

Bitcoin has lower transaction cost than Litecoin (no fee transactions seem to take a day)

Litecoin's default transaction fee is 0.1, which feels to me like significantly higher cost than credit cards, checks, cash, bitcoin, or Dwolla. Why the heck would I want to use litecoin to transfer a lot of money around when I can use bitcoin?

Now make it 0.0001 and watch the market cap of litecoin skyrocket. I'm half tempted to start a mining pool and/or fork the code and do that.

Maybe there's an argument here that the high transaction fee is necessary to make it economical to mine based on transaction fees and not the block reward, but I don't see that one being made much.

Litecoin transaction fee is not 0.1, it is 0.02 ($0.16 at current price).
The devs suggested to reduce the fee to 0.01 ($0.08 at current price) a few days ago, users voting on this at the moment and it'll likely pass.

Recently BTC transaction fee that guarantees normal confirmation time has been around 0.0005, which is roughly $0.30 at current price. So, litecoin fee is already lower than the practical BTC fee.

laowai80

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Lohoris on November 15, 2013, 07:14:00 AM

Quote from: laowai80 on November 05, 2013, 03:45:18 AM

Oh, I am sorry. Well, my point is litecoin is only 4 times 'worse' than bitcoin (max coin cap)

You are comparing apple to oranges.

So if I create a shitcoin with a coin cap of "1" it is automatically better? Or automatically worse?

Makes exactly ZERO sense.
As usual, with litecoin fans.

As usual, with bitcoin fans, they can't see nothing but bitcoin, missing out on other opportunities

For the record, I am no fan of any crypto-currency. I look into their pros and cons before I buy. No emotional attachment to any investment is a good way of managing it properly.

Topic: Why the loss of confidence in litecoin? - page 3. (Read 13836 times)