|
|
| (29 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| There is nothing on this discussion page about this article at the moment. Use it. Reasonable informed edits will be allowed through until a consensus is reached and the page unlocked. That is comments that are neither pro or anti litecoin, but are ''neutral'' and objective. [[User:Genjix|Genjix]] 10:01, 28 November 2011 (GMT)
| | 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) |
| == Objectivity please, missing citation ==
| | :: 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) |
| | |
| There are two criticisms in the article, that I believe are not objective:
| |
| | |
| * Mining Monopoly - while I heard claims that Litecoin is volnurable to botnets, I never heard anything about a single monopoloy, or anyone possibly building a "single piece of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined". Can we have a citation for this, or remove it if no citation is found?
| |
| * Pyramid Scheme - The article states, as if it is a fact, that "Litecoin effectively functions as a pyramid scheme". This is hardly objective. Litecoin could possibly become say 1% of the total Bitcoin market, and could indeed function as "silver". The same arguments in [[FAQ#Is Bitcoin a Ponzi_scheme]] apply here.
| |
| | |
| Can we fix this?
| |
| | |
| [[User:Ripper234|Ripper234]] 13:43, 13 January 2012 (GMT) | |
| | |
| * Mining Monopoly - This isn't Wikipedia. Independent research is acceptable. Litecoin's scrypt is not (and cannot be, by definition) resistant to custom mining hardware. It is, however, resistant to all commodity hardware. This leaves a huge gap in mining capabilities between commodity hardware and custom hardware, which enables even a single person designing custom hardware to easily gain a 51% attack over all other miners. Bitcoin's double-SHA256 performs well on commodity GPUs, which serve as a "tier" between CPUs and custom hardware.
| |
| * Pyramid Scheme - If you can make this more objective without being wrong, feel free. However, the fact is that Litecoin functions as a pyramid scheme because it has no long-term viability like Bitcoin does. It cannot function as "silver" or any other kind of currency because it cannot survive. Therefore, late comers do NOT benefit from it. Bitcoin is only exempt from the 'pyramid scheme' claim because of its long-term function as a currency.
| |
| | |
| [[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] 17:12, 16 January 2012 (GMT) | |
| | |
| : I believe the way to make the "pyramid scheme" section more objective is to remove it altogether. Meaningful criticism does not begin by assuming as a premise that all obstacles are insurmountable and that the currency is an inevitable failure. (Also, for clarification: did you delete my previous comments on this page because they were considered to not be objective?) [[User:Angus|Angus]] 23:35, 17 January 2012 (GMT)
| |
So, we have Namecoin and Devcoin, but not Litecoin? Newar (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Altcoins are off-topic, see the policy. Shouldn't have the others either --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. Taras (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)