|
|
| (35 intermediate revisions by 15 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) |
| == Errors ==
| | :: 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) |
| | |
| "Designed to be inefficient on all common computer components" -- this is bogus and false. Please edit and replace "all common computer components" with "both CPUs and GPUs".
| |
| | |
| Personally, I think the whole scypt-chain thing is a covert scam by people who (like me) know how to build fast custom scypt-hardware using stuff you can buy from [DigiKey http://www.digikey.com/]. So, let's stick to the facts: scypt is slow on CPUs and GPUs, but nobody has proven that it is slow on all commodity computer components. I expect that if there were enough money to be made, somebody would produce a counterexample proving that it is not slow on all commodity computer components. My threshhold for doing that is pretty high right now, but if I had more free time...
| |
| | |
| [[User:Eldentyrell|Eldentyrell]] 03:19, 14 January 2012 (GMT) | |
| | |
| == Siliness ==
| |
| | |
| "Considered silver to Bitcoin's gold"... this is a content-free sentence. In what sense is it "silver"? Maybe it would be better to simply "inline" the analogy and replace "silver to Bitcoin's gold" with whatever that analogy is trying to mean (I have no idea what that is...)?
| |
| | |
| [[User:Eldentyrell|Eldentyrell]] 03:19, 14 January 2012 (GMT) | |
| | |
| == Objectivity please, missing citation ==
| |
| | |
| 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) | |
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)