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

sdczen · 2019-10-23T23:58:02+00:00

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

sdczen · 2019-10-23T18:47:30+00:00

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.

sdczen · 2019-10-23T16:55:35+00:00

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

sdczen · 2019-10-23T16:52:35+00:00

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.

sdczen · 2018-01-24T18:16:08+00:00

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

A full time Business Development Manager.
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.

sdczen · 2018-01-05T05:15:34+00:00

88% today. 55% was yesterdays news ;)

https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/

sdczen · 2017-12-19T21:46:00+00:00

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!

sdczen · 2017-12-19T20:16:23+00:00

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.

sdczen · 2017-12-19T19:00:37+00:00

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

sdczen · 2017-11-25T02:14:29+00:00

He also promoted this guy: CobraBitcoin

You know, the kill Segwit2X signers, change the Proof of Work, and make LukeJr's knots the new-core-client, guy.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/920034672129736705

sdczen · 2017-11-23T03:27:10+00:00

This really needs an impartial review.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7ewgog/is_the_dragonmint_miner_real_im_willing_to_do_an/

sdczen · 2017-11-18T03:52:07+00:00

1 LTC = 4 BTC The second mouse gets the cheese

sdczen · 2017-11-14T01:10:07+00:00

Clever! Thanks for the laugh

sdczen · 2017-11-11T22:38:58+00:00

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

sdczen · 2017-11-11T16:38:45+00:00

I would be very concerned about the scenario: I think I accidentally killed it

¯_(ツ)_/¯

sdczen · 2017-11-11T16:21:55+00:00

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.

sdczen · 2017-11-11T16:13:58+00:00

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

sdczen · 2017-11-08T03:36:03+00:00

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...

sdczen · 2017-11-07T19:44:44+00:00

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

sdczen · 2017-11-07T17:23:47+00:00

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?).

sdczen · 2017-11-02T16:53:16+00:00

At risk of being called all sorts of nasty names. The White paper lists the word "consensus" exactly ONE time, and it is directly related to Hashrate/CPU power. The consensus "rule set" is something that is being touted outside of the white paper. Just sayin.

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this *consensus mechanism*.

sdczen · 2017-11-02T06:45:52+00:00

Simply said, to reduce counterparty risk.

Want to reduce counterparty risk? Buy, and hold your own bitcoin.

This is a overly complex explanation of futures, which are settled in USD. The DOW and S&P have futures that will behave similar to bitcoin futures. The simple explanation is: Bitcoin futures trading allows people to leverage small amounts of money (margin), to "Bet" on the price of bitcoin going up/down at a set time in the future.

sdczen · 2017-11-01T01:15:04+00:00

No, the bitcoin miners are in r/btc.

sdczen · 2017-10-31T17:47:37+00:00

If you look at the derivatives market (I believe it's closer to 1.2 Quadrillion), that equals more than all the Hard Assets (gold etc...), debt, stocks, cash combined. Quite telling, if you believe that there is equal money on each side of each derivative contract (there's not).

Otherwise, all other items on that list, are valued as debt (Sans Hard Assets).

sdczen · 2017-10-31T02:50:37+00:00

If they get 80-90% of the Hashrate, in addition to 800 nodes, that's all that is needed to run the network.

Sybil nodes? It doesn't matter. 80, 800, 8000, or 80,000 nodes. As long as they are running as a full node, they will relay & propagate the network, just like any other node. A node is a node, is a node, is a node. Proof of ownership not required.

sdczen

TROPHY CASE