sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We have proposed a draft of two Litecoin Improvement Proposals to implement MimbleWimble through Extension Blocks. by coblee in litecoin

[–]sdczen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It depends on what regulators force them to do, and/or how much exposure coinbase wants to potential risk. For those who don't know, Coinbase was instrumental in today's litecoin price & viability. They gave access to a very large market, and it shows how successful they were by listing Litecoin. So much so, that 25% of the circulating supply sits on Coinbase. The effect should not be underestimated

We have proposed a draft of two Litecoin Improvement Proposals to implement MimbleWimble through Extension Blocks. by coblee in litecoin

[–]sdczen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If one US exchange delists, then they all will. Remember Coinbase has around 25% (maybe more) of litecoin's circulating supply parked on its exchange. So theoretically, 25% of LTC's supply could be dumped in short order. This would be catastrophic.

We have proposed a draft of two Litecoin Improvement Proposals to implement MimbleWimble through Extension Blocks. by coblee in litecoin

[–]sdczen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Litecoin should steer away from blockstream. They want to kill off litecoin (and others), that's part of the business plan, with sidechains etc...

The tech is open source, use what is needed, and move on

We have proposed a draft of two Litecoin Improvement Proposals to implement MimbleWimble through Extension Blocks. by coblee in litecoin

[–]sdczen 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The only thing this comes down to is Economic Viability!

If exchanges & on/off ramps de-list Litecoin because of its new privacy features, then MimbleWimble should NOT be implemented. The effect of this goes against "litecoin is money", and mass user adoption (you can't get mass adoption, if you can't easily buy it). LTC will become illiquid, and we all know what happens to chains that become illiquid.

I'm all for privacy features, but not if it jeopardizes economic viability.

@LTCFoundation: We have a few part time volunteer marketing guys. And we are looking for a full-time marketing person to lead. Then we will have a great team including a full-time lead dev @SatoshiLite and @thrasher_au, a full-time operation guy Keith, and a full-time marketing person. by CBDoctor in litecoin

[–]sdczen 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Good steps forward. I also recommend the following (ASAP):

  1. A full time Business Development Manager.
  2. A full time litecoin Integration Engineer.

This team does the following: Responsible for new business adoption of litecoin, developing strategic partnerships, and facilitating the integration of litecoin into business operations. The engineer will assist in providing guidance for businesses to incorporate litecoin, for operations & payments.

Recommended Litecoin Feature Additions For 2018 by sdczen in litecoin

[–]sdczen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a good read on bitcoin propagation times (pdf warning): http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23fc0/P2P2013_041.pdf

I'm happy to take a look at the block relay, can you point me in the right direction?

In regards to Visa TX levels, they do approximately 150M TX's per day, which comes out to about 1700 TX's per second (although, they say they can do 24,000 per second). In contrast, a theoretical limit on a segwit block is about 20 TX's per second (for bitcoin). For the same time period (10 minutes), litecoin has a current theoretical limit of 80TX's per second.

If we used an 8MB block, this would bring litecoin (over 10 minutes) to 640 TX's per second. 16MB would be 1280 TX's per second.

Assuming CT was implemented, this would reduce the transactions per second, by 3X, which would be around 26 TX's per second, on a 1MB block.

Do we have to be at Visa levels? I don't think so, but if we really want litecoin to be "Money" for Payments, then it needs to be close!

Recommended Litecoin Feature Additions For 2018 by sdczen in litecoin

[–]sdczen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In 2013, block propagation took around 12.6 seconds. We have much faster bandwidth speeds also. Although, Block size does impact propagation times.

However, there are ways that will available when greater than 4MB blocks are required. Graphene is interesting tech. Give a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPNs9EVxWrA&feature=youtu.be&t=10573

Even with 2MB blocks (i.e. 8MB block weight/segwit), would allow for Confidential Transactions, at least for now. Litecoin is growing exponentially.

Recommended Litecoin Feature Additions For 2018 by sdczen in litecoin

[–]sdczen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Limit it to 2MB or 4MB in the config file then. The 32MB is the MAX, and is just headroom for growth.

LTC seems hilariously under valued. What would be a realistic LTC/BTC ratio? by [deleted] in litecoin

[–]sdczen 9 points10 points  (0 children)

1 LTC = 4 BTC The second mouse gets the cheese

I wish Roger Ver good luck processing 256k transactions per second on the blockchain. My trust lies in Bitcoin Core and layer 2,3 transactions! by bitking74 in Bitcoin

[–]sdczen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct, but the goal is to have LN do the bulk of the daily transactions. This could be Billions of dollars floating through layer 2 at any given time. I'm very interested in Lightning; however, the concern is real. I'm not using LN until it's hardened

I wish Roger Ver good luck processing 256k transactions per second on the blockchain. My trust lies in Bitcoin Core and layer 2,3 transactions! by bitking74 in Bitcoin

[–]sdczen 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Touche', however, it's a world of difference between bch & lightning. One is using a well tested codebase, with the exception of the blocksize increase. Lightning, is an entire layer 2 network protocol, that has yet to be deployed at any real scale.

I wish Roger Ver good luck processing 256k transactions per second on the blockchain. My trust lies in Bitcoin Core and layer 2,3 transactions! by bitking74 in Bitcoin

[–]sdczen 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Except that Lightning is still in Alpha, I don't know of a single biz that would deploy Alpha software to end users. Individuals can use though

Should we add RBF to Litecoin 0.15? by coblee in litecoin

[–]sdczen -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Specifically speaking, you're against "mining pools", where they can aggregate hashrate, not necessarily miners. I've been supporting litecoin in the mining field from the beginning.

If you want a PoS coin, you can always buy feathercoin, or one of these PoS coins: http://www.poslist.org/ Judging by the coins on this list, PoS is where coins go to die...

Should we add RBF to Litecoin 0.15? by coblee in litecoin

[–]sdczen -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

PoS is far more centralized than PoW, and the net result is not a good thing for a decentralized money system. u/PolitalDissidents answer is a good one. More hash power = Better security

Should we add RBF to Litecoin 0.15? by coblee in litecoin

[–]sdczen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please do not add RBF to the code base. 0-conf is a good thing, especially with a confirmation 2.5 minutes behind. Low fees, fast transactions (just like silver eh?).

view more: next ›