The Litepresence Report on Cryptocurrency

kfarnan said:
Effs won't add real value. Regulation is antithetical to the spirit of crypto.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the legitimization of btc in the minds of mainstream institutional funds. I know the odds are currently stacked against the approval but clearly we're seeing a speculative price move atm.
 
God LTC/BTC at 0.0036 getting really pissed right now. Have been going more than 50% ltc since 0.00425
 
fatjohn said:
God LTC/BTC at 0.0036 getting really pissed right now. Have been going more than 50% ltc since 0.00425
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any big news on LTC for awhile. I think when Coinbase added ETH and didn't touch LTC it hurt the idea that LTC was the "silver" to BTC's "gold"
 

CryptoCoinsNews





BITCOIN PRICE: 1122.01 USD
HIGH: 1127.00 USD
LOW: 1077.00 USD

NextAnalysts: Be Ready For Trading Frenzy If SEC Approves A Bitcoin ETF






Bitcoin TechnologyNewsOp-ed
[h=1]Bitcoin’s Transaction Backlogs Are Now Becoming Common[/h] Andrew Quentson on 11/02/2017







118
SHARES
TwitterLinkedin FacebookReddit Weibo

For the first time ever, bitcoin has been running above capacity for more than a week as transaction backlogs are now becoming a common experience with no indication of any solution in the near future.
Bitcoin is Currently Operating Under a Constant Backlog For the First Time – image from tradeblock

On the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] of February 2017, almost $1billion worth of bitcoin was stuck. It gradually went down, but never cleared, with around 300,000 bitcoins waiting to move. Yesterday, that went up again to almost 900,000. The mempool is usually full and the network now runs at around 3-4 txs per second when it can only handle around 2.5.
This complete transformation has had an effect on everyone. In public forums, on social media, at bitcoin businesses, at mining farms, nothing is given more attention for a prolonged period than transaction capacity. Even occasional bitcoin users and traders who never cared about scalability now bring it up everywhere with different individuals periodically complaining about still waiting for a confirmation after many hours.
Some try to help. ViaBTC, a new pool that strongly supports Bitcoin Unlimited – a grassroots client which increases transaction capacity by turning the maxblocksize limit of 1MB into a soft limit – launched a Transaction Accelerator which prioritizes any transaction that has paid more than 0.0001 BTC/KB, up to 100 transactions per hour, but it only solves one bitcoiner’s problem at the expense of another.
That’s because transaction space has now become even worse than a zero-sum game as block variance – one block might not be found in an hour – and difficulty adjustments, means that, sometimes, all transactions are suddenly sent to the back of the queue because newer transactions, with higher fee estimates, take their place.
This isn’t a coincidence. The unspoken plan (publicly implied if not at times expressly stated) is for the current situation to continue so that higher fees reduce demand for on-chain transactions to the point where everyone, but financial institutions, are priced out, thus “solving” the problem.
[h=2]Bitcoin – The Banks Clearing House?[/h] According to proponents of bitcoin as a settlement, fees should be so high that no one can afford to pay them unless they are extremely wealthy or a bank. Ordinary transactions are “spam.” – they say. Implying that only bank transactions are genuine. Bitcoin’s blockchain is not for everyday purchases, – they argue. Implying that bitcoin’s public blockchain should be reserved only for banks.
They are trying to replicate the current financial system which uses clearing houses – centralized, usually private, for profit, institutions that act as a buyer to every seller and a seller to every buyer. The most known example being the SWIFT network.
Ordinary users cannot access this network – they have to go through a bank (a trusted intermediary). Banks then move their money by first sending it to SWIFT, which confirms its veracity and validity, and once it does so sends it to its destination – usually another bank.
In practice, it is far more complex with clearing houses within clearing houses, but the settlement idea suggests that we should replicate it with bitcoin by using bitbanks – now known as Lightning Network hubs – with its very different trust model. Then, bitbanks, instead of using SWIFT, use bitcoin’s public blockchain purely as a clearing house only.
That public blockchain would have fees that are so high – maybe $400, perhaps $10,000 or even in the hundreds of thousands – that no ordinary user or company would pay.
It has some benefits over the current system because it would increase efficiency compared to centralized, largely non-automated SWIFT, but there would be added direct costs as third-parties are re-introduced and many indirect costs.
Bitbanks would act as gatekeepers, free to censor transactions, deny service, close “accounts,” and – eventually – be fully regulated, require a license, etc. As on-chain fees would be so high – at a world scale probably in the hundreds of thousands – smaller bitbanks would not really be able to compete. A Wikileaks friendly bitbank might not be able to rise, allowing for a successful cut-off of all monetary functions.
This is clearly not a peer to peer system, it’s a bank to bank system. The current bitcoin network allows anyone to send a transaction to anyone in a direct peer to peer fashion without permission from anyone and for any reason. No one can censor it, no one can ask for the creation of an “account,” no one can deny service. No one can withhold this money for any period of time.
But, if the public blockchain remains accessible to all – as is currently the case – running a node might be more expensive if technology does not keep up with demand for transactions.
[h=2]The Bitcoin Nodes[/h] Each bitcoin node has to store and verify every transaction made on bitcoin’s public blockchain. That would not directly change under bitbanks, but the growth of the blockchain would be slower and, as technology progresses, it may require less direct resources for a full node while requiring added resources for hubs.
Under direct public blockchain access, as technology progresses, node costs might reduce, but not to the same extent as under bitbanks. More likely, they remain around the same or even slightly increase.
The proponents of bitbanks argue we can not have that because of a potential increase in the costs of running a node would lead to their reduction. That implies a decrease in costs would lead to an increase in nodes. A factual question which can, to a great extent (while trying to eliminate external one-off factors), be answered by a scientific study as the bitcoin network has been running for more than eight years.
As such, it is relatively easy to research bandwidth, storage, etc., costs in a four years’ time period (or whenever lightnodes became prominent) and compare it to the number of full nodes, but this hasn’t been done despite almost two years of very public debate.
From observation, the number of publicly reachable nodes has remained somewhat constant – there have been around 5,000 over the past three years. In the meantime, storage and bandwidth has become cheaper, potentially indicating that the number of full nodes is affected more by other factors than just monetary costs, such as inconvenience.
[h=2]What’s in a Node?[/h] A node is a computer software program that applies a number of rules to validate transactions. It rejects, for example, the attempt of a rouge miner to send you fake bitcoins. It can also provide you information on whether someone is trying to double spend.
If all nodes are applying the same rules, they enforce honesty. On the other hand, if all mining nodes are applying different rules to all non-mining nodes, the latter stop working. We can change the distribution to some or a majority of non-mining/mining nodes, but the main objective analysis remains the same.
That is, nodes, by themselves, have no power where genuine network wide differences of opinions on the applicable rules are concerned. That would be a question for miners in non-dishonest situations. But, nodes do have a say where actual and objective dishonesty is concerned.
This can allow for the formation of some sort of objective conclusion. Where there is a publicly discussed difference of opinion on potential directions, rationally and objectively, as well as according to the whitepaper, it cannot be anyone else but the miners who must be the judges as they are best incentivized and positioned to make the decision.
Where there is no public discussion and the action is secretive, covert or dishonest, then almost all network wide nodes are in agreement, therefore the software both denies the invalid transaction and informs you of it, allowing you to act on a coordinated basis.
Both of the above have exceptions. Non-mining nodes can be turned by human action into mining nodes by splitting off from the network. A full node, even if all of them are in agreement, cannot protect from the double spending of a rogue miner with more than 50% control of the network hashrate.
Beyond rare exceptions, as nodes perform no function where there is a publicly discussed and genuine disagreement, their function of ensuring honesty – whether directly by rejecting invalid transactions or indirectly by providing information when almost all nodes are in agreement – can be provided, to a large extent, by light nodes which connect to full nodes.
Lightnodes require almost no resources, making them the primary choice over full nodes for two main reasons. Firstly, you can’t run a full node on a smartphone. Secondly, running a full node on a laptop makes your computer clunky, heavy, requiring much CPU, slowing down performance, and an overall hassle.
As such, most bitcoin users show no interest in operating a full node as, for an ordinary bitcoiner, there is little to gain by doing so and much inconvenience. It is also unnecessary as far as they individually are concerned because lightnodes provide to a great extent a fully acceptable service.
On the other hand, bitcoin related businesses need to run a node as they deal with so many transactions they require information as soon as possible. This suggests that increasing bitcoin businesses should, in theory, increase the number of nodes, but, since 2013, their numbers appear to have remained somewhat stable with falling businesses replaced by new ones entering the bitcoin market from developing countries.
[h=2]Corporate Bitcoin?[/h] Proponents of bitbanks argue that if running a node becomes so expensive only a few multinational co-operations can afford it, no one can say whether they are colluding and secretly breaching the rules to, for example, print bitcoins out of thin air. That is, even if all nodes are in agreement, they would not be able to perform their primary function of rejecting objectively dishonest behavior because they could all change their code to dishonest behavior and no one would know.
This argument requires the exercise of imagination in an attempt to predict the future – an impossible task, but let us try. A world where multinationals are running huge servers which only perform the function of acting as a node is a world where almost everyone is transacting in bitcoin. The value of the network would be so many trillions. Every house purchase, every sale, every coffee, would be in bitcoin.
Any business that accept many payments would need to run a bitcoin node. Every university that claims some reputation would need one too so that future developers can gain the required knowledge. Independent businesses which provide node access would rise. Within banks, many developers would be required to man the nodes. Governments would probably consider them as vital infrastructure for the nation’s security.
Even if we do not imagine the other incredible transformations and the clear benefits bitcoin would have provided to so many to reach such scale, a global co-ordination between all countries and businesses, for profit and non-profit, which necessarily would include so many people, appears impossible if the intentions are dishonest. If the intentions are honest, how on earth can we possibly form any opinion considering it would be a global co-ordination, enemy governments agreeing, their citizens too, all businesses, etc.
But, since this is just an imaginative exercise with very limited information and a mountain of unknown unknowns, different scenarios can be portrayed as one pleases. The exercise, therefore, is subjective, speculative, not based on scientific thinking and just a mere opinion with no facts.
To illustrate, if we look back just thirty years ago, we would find ourselves in a time with no cell-phones – let alone smart phones – when computers were nearly as big as houses and, later on, when 640KB was enough for everyone. More concretely, what 80s adult would have even remotely imagined the current discussion?
[h=2]Bitcoin – The Payment Network[/h] We cannot predict the future. What we do know is that the bitcoin community has in fact reached wide consensus on what affects today and the near future.
Every reasonable and objective bitcoiner agrees that a fourfold increase of transaction capacity is “safe.” Segregated Witnesses, a proposal supported by many Bitcoin Core developers, increases transaction capacity to 4MB in attack scenarios. A Cornell study found that 4MB would largely retain the current number of nodes. Miners have agreed to 8MB.
This is consensus. Therefore, the current stalemate has nothing to do with technology. It is, instead, a needless and very harmful division of bitcoin’s community. Its effect has been to hamper bitcoin’s current function as a payment network. An effect that proponents of the bitbank network will readily admit or willingly imply by calling ordinary transactions “spam”, thus seemingly stating that only bitbank transactions are not spam. Or stating that bitcoin is not for “ordinary transactions,” thus implying its only for the use of banks.
Nonetheless, around 46% of miners do not seem to care. Although bitcoin has now become even slower than cross-border payments within Europe, as well as an experience far more inconvenient than a bank transfer, while at the same time providing no added benefit save for an easily replicated limited number of coins, they do not act.
“This makes me sad. Still remember 2013 when people were excited about using bitcoin as a currency.” – co-founder of the Bitcoin Magazine.
Blockchain




FinTech
ETH
Click to expand...
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoins-transaction-backlogs-now-becoming-common/
 
View attachment 5636


[h=1]Bitcoin Fork Soon? Bitcoin Unlimited Surges Past SegWit, Core Blocks Drop Below 75%[/h] 11976 Total views
800 Total shares


725_Ly9jb2ludGVsZWdyYXBoLmNvbS9zdG9yYWdlL3VwbG9hZHMvdmlldy9mNTVmOWRiNDA0ZjNhZTYxNjQxY2RiMGQzYTllN2E0NC5qcGc=.jpg

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks mined have reached a new high, passing SegWit and indicating that a hard fork may be just around the corner.
Of the last 144 blocks over the last 24 hours, blocks mined by the Bitcoin Unlimited client have reached 28.5 percent of the network total. This is the second time Unlimited has passed SegWit adoption this month and the first time Bitcoin Core blocks mined have dropped below 75 percent of the network total.
Bitcoin’s network load and resulting scaling issues have been the source of debate and controversy in the community. In particular, the impetus to hard fork Bitcoin to raise the block size limit beyond one megabyte has been a central issue to this debate.
A new high in Bitcoin Unlimited’s adoption, which would allow miners to mine blocks larger than one megabyte, may indicate that the block size limit may be raised soon with the goal of alleviating Bitcoin’s network congestion problems.
[h=2]Bitcoin’s scaling problems have taken their toll[/h] The Bitcoin network’s activity has increasingly pushed the limits of its capacity recently. Over the last year, average block size, median confirmation time and mempool transaction count have all risen significantly. BitcoinFees.info has charted transaction fees over the last six months, which have seen a steady increase, especially this year.
Now, the average fee to have a transaction included in the next six blocks or roughly one hour is $0.37, higher than many card processors’ fees.
For reference, the popular point-of-sale system Square charges 2.75 percent on swiped transactions, or roughly 28 cents on a ten-dollar transaction- a couple of pints of beer, for example. That same transaction with Bitcoin would cost 37 cents and take over an hour to confirm.
User emsiak recently posted on Reddit in /r/Bitcoin about his troubles attempting to move a total of 0.05BTC that had accumulated from micropayments from web advertising revenue, but was unable to as the suggested fee was larger than the transaction amount.
User coinspace encouraged Bitcoin users to concentrate all micropayments, noting that “[d]ue to fees, any output worth about $0.1/0.1mBTC or less is worthless.”
[h=2]More companies and users switching to other coins[/h] As a consequence of Bitcoin’s scaling issues, more and more companies are exploring alternatives for payment methods of both reduced cost and faster transaction times.
Erik Voorhees of streamlined cryptocurrency exchange ShapeShift.io has publicly mused about the challenges presented by Bitcoin’s fees, stating that “the higher it gets, the less useful the system becomes.”
He has also admitted to holding Ethereum to use for payments because of Bitcoin’s issues:
I'm finding myself holding some extra ETH to use as payments, since Bitcoin is becoming too expensive/delayed :(
— Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees) February 10, 2017​
Cryptocurrency exchange Nocks, primarily used as an accompaniment facilitating the use of Dutch-based coin Gulden, recently dropped Bitcoin support altogether.
This was partially because of issues surrounding Bitcoin’s purported reputation as a darknet market currency but also because of its untenable transaction fees and times, which stand in stark contrast to Gulden, which has attempted to make a name for itself as an everyday payment method.
Click to expand...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitc...-surges-past-segwit-core-blocks-drop-below-75
 
Following the re-adjustment of bitcoin’s network difficulty after a sudden increase, a massive transaction backlog began developing yesterday, leading to a torrent of complaints.
$250 Million Are Currently Stuck in Limbo – Image from TradeBlock

An incredible sum of 278,872.21 bitcoins, worth around a quarter of a billion dollars, is currently in limbo, stuck in the ether, unable to move. In response, angry users have littered public spaces to vent their frustration at the situation. One of them is a representative from Vaultoro, a bitcoin and gold exchange, who publicly stated:
“[W]e paid 0.0005 fee (45 cents) to get a client their withdrawal and it took 17 hours to clear and actually only cleared because I put it into the Viabtc transaction accelerator.”
As a bitcoin only (maximalists if you will) business, we are starting to find it very hard. Clients get pissed off when we charge more for withdrawals, they get pissed off when it takes ages to deposit and the company gets the blame. If we raise fees, we get complaints and it totally cuts out the developing world because some people live on 5 bucks a day so a 50 cent fee is too much for them to bother.”
Another user could not contain himself. After stating he mistakenly entered a lower fee, the lack of any remedy made him feel the bitcoin network had told him to **** off:
“Obviously this is my fault. I should have set a higher fee… But I didn’t. I made a newbie mistake. And now I’m *****ed. My money is there but I can’t touch it until some random undetermined future date when the tx drops out of the mem pool. Bitcoin just told me to go **** myself, essentially.”
[h=2]The New Normal?[/h] One highly important mechanism of bitcoin’s system design is network difficulty, a sort of calculator who measures the total network hashpower and increases or decreases the difficulty of finding a block reward of 12.5 btc based on whether the hashpower increased or decreased. Accordingly, it adjusts every two weeks.
When hashpower does increase, as has often been the case, the bitcoin network is operating at speed and can handle more transactions as blocks are found faster than the usual average of 10 minutes. Once difficulty re-adjusts in two weeks, transaction processing returns to normal operations. With full blocks, that creates a sudden massive backlog as the temporary and somewhat artificial added transaction capacity instantly vanishes.
Bitcoin’s Mempool Size From November 2016 to January 2017 – Image from Blockchain.info

In the past two months, there have been three serious backlogs and many smaller ones. If one transacts during this period, although you may have paid a decent fee and perhaps even a higher than usual fee, you may still need to wait as transaction capacity is suddenly lowered.
If the sum is considerable or time sensitive, particularly as transacting in bitcoin is still a fairly new and unfamiliar experience, this denial of service can be extremely frustrating and somewhat scary with users wondering whether they will receive their bitcoin back. Usually, it leads to angry complaints that fill inboxes of bitcoin businesses as well as public discussion spaces. Price, too, tends to react by falling lower as has been the case since yesterday.
Bitcoin’s Price Falls by $40 Following the Formation of a Transaction Backlog – Image from BitcoinWisdom

[h=2]Is Bitcoin at Risk of Being Replaced?[/h] The experience might be excused once, perhaps twice, but as it repeats, the frustration and anger may turn to desperation with users eventually beginning to dread transacting in bitcoin and perhaps give up entirely, but there are two important aspects that keep bitcoin at the front. One is brand recognition, the other is investors’ loyalty.
Bitcoin is, by all accounts, a brilliant name and a fairly widely recognized brand. It has now further developed to mean or symbolize many things, such as digital gold, internet money, freedom, the future of currency, a response to the banking crisis, part of the internet culture, etc, etc. That may help to delay the advancement of any competitor, but a new brand can build on it, take its symbolism, and further add “better” to its name recognition. On the other hand, persuading current investors to move may be more difficult, but their loyalty might quickly change if it appears the new brand has a real chance of overtaking the currency.
It is unlikely the process would be sudden, with investors probably at first diversifying a small amount, just in case, then more, until in effect they have moved, but would bitcoin respond if it became clear the currency is at serious risk of being replaced?
[h=2]The Intractable Debate[/h] We used to often argue that no other currency would overtake bitcoin as it would simply incorporate any new feature that appears desirable. That, however, has not actually happened. Although, for example, it has been proven (PDF) that Ethereum’s confirmation times of as low as 17 seconds do work with zero problems and provide in 10 minutes (1 block confirmation on average for bitcoin) the same security as 6 block confirmations for bitcoin (which takes, on average, around one hour), there has been no serious discussion to lower confirmation times.
There are many other examples, such as Litecoin’s 4MB blocks which allow the network to operate with no problem whatever. They are currently using on average only 1 or 2KB per block, with around 1,000x more space available, yet no one seems to care to create big blocks so as to gain some sort of advantage as has been suggested would happen if bitcoin’s blocksize was increased. Ethereum operates on a dynamic blocksize, yet again no one has played the system to create bigger blocks as some have argued miners might.
This suggests that bitcoin might not currently be able to respond to the advances of a new currency in a constructive way by itself becoming more competitive, not least because the community is seemingly unable to act on solving the current transaction problem through a fairly simple upgrade, let alone reach any agreement on adding nicer things.
[h=2]The Problem?[/h] Open source development has one fundamental problem. It relies on unaccountable volunteers that go through no vetting process so randomly contributing and then gradually taking influential positions in a fairly subjective and arbitrary manner. They, so being just volunteers who are freely giving their work, have no requirements to perform at a satisfactory level nor any requirement to have the currency’s best interest at heart. That means they may have their own agendas, whether political or economical, which may or may not align with what impartially could be said would be best for the network.
Usually, it’s not a great problem because the project’s founder – who naturally we should think must want the best for the network – takes a leadership role and sort of keeps everyone in check with Linus Torvalds a prominent example. Nakamoto, however, left. His chosen project leader, Gavin Andresen, who publicly raised the capacity problem we are still facing more than two years ago, had his commits arbitrarily removed without any wide public discussion last year.
Business and miners now depend on the voluntary, non-paid, actions of developers with varied work quality and interests that just happened to contribute either purely altruistically or with the intention of steering the project for economical or intellectual reasons.
[h=2]The Solution?[/h] Businesses, early adopters and, in particular, miners, have failed to provide developers. They have further failed to create a structure where the priorities, speed and quality of work can have some sort of accountability, similar to the Linux Foundation.
Andresen tried to do so through the Bitcoin Foundation, but at a time when the ecosystem was still far too immature and courted much genuine and artificial controversy. It thus failed and in doing so created a vacuum which gave Blockstream the opportunity to hire many developers, gaining great influence in the direction of bitcoin. Unfortunately, Blockstream is a for profit company which owes a primary legal duty to their own shareholders and investors, above bitcoin and the wider bitcoin ecosystem.
Their interests may often align, but, at times, they might not as Blockstream’s primary business is to sell private blockchains (sidechains) to banks and other companies, with the core bitcoin protocol probably a secondary consideration and likely only of relevance as far as they retain influence and as far as they can modify it in whatever way their business requires.
Specifically, whether a limited transaction capacity directly benefits their business interest in the short term or in the long run we do not know as their presentations to investors have not been published nor has any concrete business plan been released. We are therefore left to read their actions.
In particular, Blockstream employees and companies that do business with Blockstream tend to be the most vocal in arguing for a limited transaction capacity. Moreover, suggestions by some Blockstream employees that they will quit bitcoin development if the maxblocksize is increased does indicate that a limited transaction capacity is of a fundamental consideration, but it is not clear whether that is on a personal or company level nor whether it is for economical or intellectual reasons.
In any event, the way bitcoin currently operates, as far as development of the Bitcoin Core client is concerned, appears to very much depend on trusting Blockstream and its steering direction of Bitcoin Core as there is no longer any counterbalancing influence in Bitcoin Core development with Andresen, Garzik and Hearn seemingly pushed out.
That means that the interests of other businesses, miners and the wider ecosystem currently has no voice in Bitcoin Core development. That is primarily due to a failure by miners, businesses and the wider ecosystem to organize in such a way as to ensure the very important work of bitcoin development is undertaken in a way that impartially can be said benefits the entire ecosystem.
Until they do so, the increase or, the opposite, a lack of action on transaction capacity, might soon be replaced by some other steering action that may come at the expense of some other parts of the ecosystem. To address and solve this imbalance, development needs to be incentivized by all ecosystem participants in an accountable way both to ensure that actions, which impartially can be said are in the best interest of the ecosystem, are undertaken and to ensure the speed, quality and priority of development is accountable and incentivized.
As such, it may well be the case that the 1MB limit was placed there less for technical reasons and more to firstly see whether bitcoin can be hijacked and, if not, to incentivize ecosystem participants, especially miners, whom the system design trusts the most due to its design incentives, to contribute towards bitcoin development so as to ensure they operate in the best interest of the entire network.
What Should the Bitcoin Network Do?
  • Hardfork Through Bitcoin Unlimited
  • Softfork Through Segwit
  • Hardfork to 4MB Plus Segwit
  • Don’t Know
  • Hardfork to 2MB Plus Segwit
  • Do Nothing
Click to expand...
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bit...ions-backlog-reaches-quarter-billion-dollars/
 
It would not surprise me if banks or others concerned about bitcoin started churning out lots of transactions to deliberately slow things down.
 
To many morons in bitcoin blocking progress. Bitcoin could easily increase transaction capacity in weeks, just requires miners signaling segwit. Done, nearly double capacity, then schnorr signatures can be incorporated and save like 20% per transaction on size, then lightning network could deploy easily because of the malleability fix. Then if need more well, then we need to schedule a hardfork a year in advance for additional capacity. But even without a hardfork, we could easily with just what is on the table likely handle 5 times or more transactions and users, just requires the hard headed miners to stop being stupid.
 
Last edited:
And yet btc rises and ltc stalls, all my ltc transactions have always gone way faster than btc.
 
fatjohn said:
And yet btc rises and ltc stalls, all my ltc transactions have always gone way faster than btc.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that is wholly due to the fact there is virtually no retailer support for LTC. If LTC was accepted at even a quarter of the web sites Bitcoin is, the situation would be different. I've no idea why bitpay and coinbase shun litecoin, it wouldn't require much "new" coding to integrate it.
 
Hey Guys, an options player I know who is a wiz at math brought this article to my attention, I haven't looked at it closely yet but...... Litepresence I was hoping to get your opinion on it !!! TIAhttps://techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/security-researchers-announce-first-practical-sha-1-collision-attack/

this refers to reversing hashes or something????
 
bullhammer said:
Hey Guys, an options player I know who is a wiz at math brought this article to my attention, I haven't looked at it closely yet but...... Litepresence I was hoping to get your opinion on it !!! TIAhttps://techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/security-researchers-announce-first-practical-sha-1-collision-attack/

this refers to reversing hashes or something????
Click to expand...

thats' old hash tech, still used by credit cards and websites. good reason not to use the credit cards.
 
@Litepresence......
this is part of a conversation with a friend I know, Leov, a math wiz and Options master.....

"Yes NP means Non-Polynomial and it means that a problem can't be solved just by brute force alone because increasing the complexity of the problem just a tiny bit makes it orders of magnitude harder to solve. The state of the art in mathematics is that hashing functions are irreversible in principle and that trying to reverse them computationally is an NP problem.
However it will take just a theoretical advance that shows how to reverse any hash problem and that will be it. The computation aspect will become irrelevant as the solution will either be in closed form, or if numerical then it will be done in polynomial time achieving the same effect.

He thinks this theory will debase all cryptos drastically

I am NOT of the same opinion myself, just wondering what your take is???

BTW hope all is well with you and yours

cheers, BH
 
In response to ronpaulisgreat

Yes but i think alot of traffic is between exchanges and polo bitfinex btc-e kraken okcoin all use ltc as well.

Seriously in this environment i would always transfer to ltc to send my funds around instead of having to wait hours and risk a massive btc crash in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
presence said:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bit...ions-backlog-reaches-quarter-billion-dollars/
Click to expand...

People seem to forget that we're still competing with the ultra slow and expensive legacy bank wire transfer systems. It costs $15-$45 in fees and 3-5 days to wire transfer amounts as small as three figures. Even Paypal takes a long time despite being free. It looks like you instantly received money through PayPal but you still can't touch the money for 3-4 days. Most people already have money in their checking accounts so they don't really think about it.

As for the forks...
Segwit requires 95% consensus.
Bitcoin Unlimited requires 75% consensus.

It's a stalemate and neither is going to happen. That is fine. For the time being bitcoin won't be used as a micro-transaction method but it can still be used as store of value, of course.

My advice is to use a wallet like Mycelium. It will help calculate the miner fees for you so you aren't waiting days.
 
Last edited:
Also, the latest version of Bitcoin-Core (v0.14) that just came out a couple days ago lets you go back and adjust the fee if things are taking too long for you. **thumbs-up**

P.S. If you support the Segwit soft-fork method, you can signal your support by running a node. Just run v0.13, 0.13.1, or 0.14
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Last Thing We Need Right Now is a Fed Rate Cut
Replies
2
Views
94
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
Get Ready for the Republican Carbon Market
Replies
15
Views
4K
PAF
PAF
kahless
Trump: Cryptocurrency ‘a Very Dangerous Thing’ — ‘I Like to Have the Dollar’
2 3
Replies
57
Views
7K
A Son of Liberty
A Son of Liberty
libertasbella
Cryptocurrency Quotes for Investors Who Don’t Need No Fed
Replies
2
Views
1K
libertasbella
libertasbella
Brian4Liberty
The 18 Minutes of Trading Chaos That Broke the Nickel Market
Replies
1
Views
445
Madison320
M
Back
Top