Talk:Litecoin - Revision history

Taras at 05:10, 10 January 2015

2015-01-10T05:10:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 10 January 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? [[User:Newar\|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar\|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)		So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? [[User:Newar\|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar\|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	* Altcoins are off-topic, see the policy. Shouldn't have the others either --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)		: Altcoins are off-topic, see the policy. Shouldn't have the others either --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			:: I've redirected Litecoin to Scrypt. While Litecoin itself admittedly doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki, Scrypt PoW ''is'' a technology that was significant to the mining industry as a whole. I'm still not sure if it belongs - it'd be a little documentary about TBX and LTC's rise and fall - I'm wondering if we should just get rid of it entirely. [[User:Taras\|Taras]] ([[User talk:Taras\|talk]]) 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Luke-jr at 08:29, 3 November 2014

2014-11-03T08:29:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 3 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? [[User:Newar\|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar\|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)		So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? [[User:Newar\|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar\|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
			* Altcoins are off-topic, see the policy. Shouldn't have the others either --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Newar: Created page with "So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? ~~~~"

2014-11-02T18:33:46Z

Created page with "So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? ~~~~"

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 2 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~== NPOV attempts ==~~		So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? [[User:Newar\|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar\|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

	~~Ripper234 apparently disagrees with the wording of "Bitcoin does not suffer from these "flaws" and therefore does not fall under the "pump and dump" scheme~~, ~~according to this argument." despite its [[Litecoin#Pump~~ and ~~Dump Scheme\|context]]. I've been pondering a way to rephrase it~~, but not ~~coming up with any good solutions. Anyone else want to take a shot at it~~? ~~(please don't remove either component of the statement, as they are both relevant to the meaning) --~~[[User:~~Luke-jr~~\|~~Luke-jr~~]] ([[User talk:~~Luke-jr~~\|talk]]) 02:10, ~~25 March 2013~~ (~~GMT~~)

Luke-jr: Follow-up to Ripper234 edit

2013-03-25T02:10:50Z

Follow-up to Ripper234 edit

Show changes

Gavinandresen: /* "Pyramid Scheme" */

2013-03-24T16:54:32Z

"Pyramid Scheme"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 24 March 2013
Line 40:		Line 40:
	== "Pyramid Scheme" ==		== "Pyramid Scheme" ==
	I concur that the "3.3 Pyramid Scheme section is highly subjective and not worthy to be here. Also why is this page protected? [[User:Barbarousrelic\|Barbarousrelic]] ([[User talk:Barbarousrelic\|talk]]) 19:48, 26 July 2012 (GMT)		I concur that the "3.3 Pyramid Scheme section is highly subjective and not worthy to be here. Also why is this page protected? [[User:Barbarousrelic\|Barbarousrelic]] ([[User talk:Barbarousrelic\|talk]]) 19:48, 26 July 2012 (GMT)

			Agreed. I removed it. --[[User:Gavinandresen\|Gavin Andresen]] ([[User talk:Gavinandresen\|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2013 (GMT)

	== Litecoin has Android miner which Bitcoin doesn't ==		== Litecoin has Android miner which Bitcoin doesn't ==

Weex: /* Edit request */

2013-02-21T18:00:50Z

Edit request

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 21 February 2013
Line 61:		Line 61:

	== Edit request ==		== Edit request ==

			Please unlock this article. There are enough errors that it's worth the small risk of a new edit war. [[User:Weex\|Weex]] ([[User talk:Weex\|talk]])

	Bitcoin no longer offers 50 coins per block. [[User:Dree12\|Dree12]] ([[User talk:Dree12\|talk]]) 02:32, 10 December 2012 (GMT)		Bitcoin no longer offers 50 coins per block. [[User:Dree12\|Dree12]] ([[User talk:Dree12\|talk]]) 02:32, 10 December 2012 (GMT)
Line 67:		Line 69:
	We should add the [http://wiki.litecoin.net Litecoin Wiki] to external links. We should also give readers a direct link to the [http://wiki.litecoin.net/index.php/Comparison_between_Bitcoin_and_Litecoin Comparison between Bitcoin and Litecoin] article on Litecoin Wiki.		We should add the [http://wiki.litecoin.net Litecoin Wiki] to external links. We should also give readers a direct link to the [http://wiki.litecoin.net/index.php/Comparison_between_Bitcoin_and_Litecoin Comparison between Bitcoin and Litecoin] article on Litecoin Wiki.
	--[[User:Chawlindel\|Chawlindel]] ([[User talk:Chawlindel\|talk]]) 23:51, 15 December 2012 (GMT)		--[[User:Chawlindel\|Chawlindel]] ([[User talk:Chawlindel\|talk]]) 23:51, 15 December 2012 (GMT)


	== change request ==		== change request ==

LaSeek: /* change request */

2012-12-18T17:22:56Z

change request

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 18 December 2012
Line 111:		Line 111:
	Due to this - some cryptocoin blockchains have had to compromise their design & implement extra logic to allow "backdoor" tx - where a mining pool will accept lower fees for tx. Litecoin haven't yet had to consider such an approach due to its robust network design. It's the belief of the litecoin developers that implementing the backdoor logic for lower tx fees compromises the core ideas behind part of the network design - where block reward halves as the blockchain grows. Ideally the rewards from tx fees should cover any reward decrease.		Due to this - some cryptocoin blockchains have had to compromise their design & implement extra logic to allow "backdoor" tx - where a mining pool will accept lower fees for tx. Litecoin haven't yet had to consider such an approach due to its robust network design. It's the belief of the litecoin developers that implementing the backdoor logic for lower tx fees compromises the core ideas behind part of the network design - where block reward halves as the blockchain grows. Ideally the rewards from tx fees should cover any reward decrease.

			--[[User:laSeek\|laSeek]] ([[User talk:laSeek\|talk]])
	[[User:laSeek\|laSeek]]

LaSeek: /* change request */

2012-12-18T17:03:28Z

change request

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 18 December 2012
Line 80:		Line 80:

	Pyramid Scheme		Pyramid Scheme

	"Litecoin is no more a pyramid scheme than any cryptocoin is where mining pools are the most common form of mining. As such this section is irrelevant to the litecoin specific pages and might better be suited for the wiki page about cryptocoins."		"Litecoin is no more a pyramid scheme than any cryptocoin is where mining pools are the most common form of mining. As such this section is irrelevant to the litecoin specific pages and might better be suited for the wiki page about cryptocoins."

	(Slight) Premining

			* (Slight) Premining

	should be changed to		should be changed to

	"Premining ~~- removing the (slight) and just describe what was premined."~~		* Premining

	Litecoin uses Scrypt as a proof-of-work scheme. Scrypt adds memory-intensive algorithms to reduce the efficiency of GPUs down to the level of CPUs. This is good in the short term, but is almost certainly harmful if Litecoin were to gain widescale adoption		Litecoin uses Scrypt as a proof-of-work scheme. Scrypt adds memory-intensive algorithms to reduce the efficiency of GPUs down to the level of CPUs. This is good in the short term, but is almost certainly harmful if Litecoin were to gain widescale adoption
Line 94:		Line 97:
	Litecoin uses Scrypt as a proof-of-work scheme. Scrypt was selected due to the way it was designed - which balances the memory/rate at which it can be used to "brute force" hashes. The default implementation of Scrypt is memory-intensive but at a higher rate of hashing. This can be adjusted to reduce the memory used at the expense of the rate of hashing. Due to the way that Scrypt brings memory into the equation wrt hardware - it makes it difficult to implement on FPGA's & ASIC type hardware. As the litecoin blockchain becomes more widely adopted - we expect the efficiencies gained through properly designed hardware to encourage FPGA & ASIC manufacturers to develop suitable hardware that can be used with the Scrypt algo used by litecoin. This broadly follows what we've seen with other blockchains such as bitcoin.		Litecoin uses Scrypt as a proof-of-work scheme. Scrypt was selected due to the way it was designed - which balances the memory/rate at which it can be used to "brute force" hashes. The default implementation of Scrypt is memory-intensive but at a higher rate of hashing. This can be adjusted to reduce the memory used at the expense of the rate of hashing. Due to the way that Scrypt brings memory into the equation wrt hardware - it makes it difficult to implement on FPGA's & ASIC type hardware. As the litecoin blockchain becomes more widely adopted - we expect the efficiencies gained through properly designed hardware to encourage FPGA & ASIC manufacturers to develop suitable hardware that can be used with the Scrypt algo used by litecoin. This broadly follows what we've seen with other blockchains such as bitcoin.

	Faster, Smaller Block Chain

			* Faster, Smaller Block Chain
	The Litecoin blockchain differs from its Bitcoin counterpart in that it tries to have smaller blocks, and generate them four times as fast as the Bitcoin network allows. This means that 1-confirmation (low value) merchants get faster confirmations for their online products, but increases the network overhead.		The Litecoin blockchain differs from its Bitcoin counterpart in that it tries to have smaller blocks, and generate them four times as fast as the Bitcoin network allows. This means that 1-confirmation (low value) merchants get faster confirmations for their online products, but increases the network overhead.

LaSeek: /* change request */

2012-12-18T16:56:26Z

change request

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 18 December 2012
Line 105:		Line 105:
	2) Due to the way nodes on the network calculate tx fees - the larger the number of outstanding tx - the greater the fees.		2) Due to the way nodes on the network calculate tx fees - the larger the number of outstanding tx - the greater the fees.
	Due to this - some cryptocoin blockchains have had to compromise their design & implement extra logic to allow "backdoor" tx - where a mining pool will accept lower fees for tx. Litecoin haven't yet had to consider such an approach due to its robust network design. It's the belief of the litecoin developers that implementing the backdoor logic for lower tx fees compromises the core ideas behind part of the network design - where block reward halves as the blockchain grows. Ideally the rewards from tx fees should cover any reward decrease.		Due to this - some cryptocoin blockchains have had to compromise their design & implement extra logic to allow "backdoor" tx - where a mining pool will accept lower fees for tx. Litecoin haven't yet had to consider such an approach due to its robust network design. It's the belief of the litecoin developers that implementing the backdoor logic for lower tx fees compromises the core ideas behind part of the network design - where block reward halves as the blockchain grows. Ideally the rewards from tx fees should cover any reward decrease.


	[[User:laSeek\|laSeek]]		[[User:laSeek\|laSeek]]

LaSeek: fixing my badly formatted suggestions

2012-12-18T16:55:55Z

fixing my badly formatted suggestions

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 18 December 2012
Line 105:		Line 105:
	2) Due to the way nodes on the network calculate tx fees - the larger the number of outstanding tx - the greater the fees.		2) Due to the way nodes on the network calculate tx fees - the larger the number of outstanding tx - the greater the fees.
	Due to this - some cryptocoin blockchains have had to compromise their design & implement extra logic to allow "backdoor" tx - where a mining pool will accept lower fees for tx. Litecoin haven't yet had to consider such an approach due to its robust network design. It's the belief of the litecoin developers that implementing the backdoor logic for lower tx fees compromises the core ideas behind part of the network design - where block reward halves as the blockchain grows. Ideally the rewards from tx fees should cover any reward decrease.		Due to this - some cryptocoin blockchains have had to compromise their design & implement extra logic to allow "backdoor" tx - where a mining pool will accept lower fees for tx. Litecoin haven't yet had to consider such an approach due to its robust network design. It's the belief of the litecoin developers that implementing the backdoor logic for lower tx fees compromises the core ideas behind part of the network design - where block reward halves as the blockchain grows. Ideally the rewards from tx fees should cover any reward decrease.
			[[User:laSeek\|laSeek]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 10 January 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? [[User:Newar\|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar\|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)		So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? [[User:Newar\|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar\|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	* Altcoins are off-topic, see the policy. Shouldn't have the others either --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)		: Altcoins are off-topic, see the policy. Shouldn't have the others either --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			:: I've redirected Litecoin to Scrypt. While Litecoin itself admittedly doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki, Scrypt PoW ''is'' a technology that was significant to the mining industry as a whole. I'm still not sure if it belongs - it'd be a little documentary about TBX and LTC's rise and fall - I'm wondering if we should just get rid of it entirely. [[User:Taras\|Taras]] ([[User talk:Taras\|talk]]) 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)