Coinbase adds support for Litecoin • Hacker News Board

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#211

Post by kordless » Thu, May 04, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

flyingfences wrote: post #205

kordless wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would modify that slightly and say Litecoin is back because of the Lightning Network, which benefits greatly from features provided by Segwit, and which itself leverages payment channels backed by multi-sig addresses. While Lightning can be enabled without Segwit, it's far more trustworthy with it, than without it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfvhiqFw7A

> which benefits greatly from features provided by Segwit Which is only possible because of the features provided by SegWit.

Actually, that's not technically true. FWIU, Lighting could be run on both Bitcoin and Litecoin today, but issues with transaction malleability could cause it to be less than trustworthy, for some use cases. So, Segwit, which fixes transaction mailability by moving the header in the transaction to it's own section, enables a higher trust Lightning network to be deployed, on top of a more trustworthy blockchain.

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#212

Post by splintercell » Thu, May 04, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

VMG wrote: post #106

hultner wrote: post #101

Is Litecoin still gaining momentum at a significant pace? I'm not quite up to current developments in the crypto coin communities, however my perception from the outside is that Ethereum has replaced Litecoin as the leading altcoin. Is this incorrect? How well does Litecoin fare against the congestion problems we've heard about from the Bitcoin communities?

You can't rank altcoins by market cap, it's a very flawed indicator. Unlike Bitcoin, none of the Altcoins currently have any use outside speculation, including Ethereum. There is significant skepticism that Ethereum could deliver on it's promises if it was widely used. Litecoin is an almost identical clone of Bitcoin. The network recently decided to implement a change (called SegWit) that will help with scalability (…

> none of the Altcoins currently have any use outside speculation,

I feel like this is moving goal posts. Take for instance Litecoin has a market not because it is used by various businesses but because it provides faster clearance to bitcoin exchanges (due to faster transaction times). Sure exchanges are dealing on a lower security network but they're ok taking that risk because the value they derive from it (i.e. more profits) is higher than the insurance it would cost them if something were to go wrong.

Similarly, people use Monero because it provides them with the much needed privacy features. They may anchor back in bitcoin to purchase goods, but it doesn't change the fact that the reason why Monero is valued isn't "pure speculation".

Ethereum is currently being valued like a startup, it's product are expected to be very much useful in the future. Almost none of these products really care about Ethers being used to buy and sell goods on Craigslist or on Tigerdirect for computers. Take for instance Golem.

You're claiming that only real valuation of good is if it is being used to exchange for real goods or else it is pure speculation, BECAUSE bitcoin has a clear advantage in that field. It's like Dash saying "No cryptocurrency is as good as Dash because all cryptocurrencies have long names, and only Dash has a short name, so it will be easier to adopt because the name can hang on easily on to your tongue.".

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#213

Post by splintercell » Thu, May 04, 2017, 7:22 PM UTC

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #197

i_cant_speel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are people honestly that concerned about North Korea?

I doubt it. If you want to blame geopolitical factors at all for the recent investment in cryptocurrency: 1. Chinese investors see crypto as a way of moving currency outside of China. The Chinese government has recently cracked down on movement of money outside of the country. 2. The rise of populism could drive people into crypto. The rise of actors like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders (although defeated)…

Can we at least track the usage of a cryptocurrency by IP address? Is there a site which analyzes them?

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#214

Post by sanswork » Thu, May 04, 2017, 7:36 PM UTC

lkbm wrote: post #195

sanswork wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For extremely limited definitions of the term useful.

For an extremely limited amount of use. The definition of "useful" is something along the lines of "can be used". We don't have different definitions for "useful" that range from "can be used 10 ways" vs. "can be used 1000 ways". No one's arguing bitcoin has the same level of adoption as USD for facilitating trade. They're arguing that it has more than zero and that ETH has zero. Two comments up you argued that havin…

>Bitcoin is an extra payment option in n>0 situations.

And not a payment situation at all in almost all solutions.

"n is small and therefore n is not useful compared to x" is what I'm arguing. You cannot depend on n when the ability to use it as a means of payment is so inconsistent. That goes for any value of n not just Bitcoin.

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#215

Post by sanswork » Thu, May 04, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

iopq wrote: post #140

sanswork wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For extremely limited definitions of the term useful.

If you're a millionaire in China, it's extremely useful, for example.

If you're a millionaire in China property in the west is more useful.

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#216

Post by sushid » Thu, May 04, 2017, 8:11 PM UTC

dvdhsu wrote: post #23

Is there interest in a cryptocurrency index fund? The idea is you could just buy an index fund composed of, say, 50% BTC, 20% ETH, 15% LTC and 15% ZEC. I'm fairly certain that one of these cryptocurrencies will 10 or 100x in value over the next 5 years, but buying each one individually is just such a pain. Would you invest? In reality, we'd probably buy the top 10 coins weighted according to some measure, and rebalan…

There's quite a few players already doing this. Iconomi has already "solved" the problem of paying out dividends by "burning" their own coins,.

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#217

Post by vocatus_gate » Thu, May 04, 2017, 8:20 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #210

vocatus_gate wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?

Yes. What part of a crypto currency with no established usage outside of speculation would exclude it from being labeled as such?

From Black's Law Dictionary:

Ponzi Scheme: "...Money from the new investors is used directly to repay or pay interest to earlier investors"

Bitcoin does not fit the definition of Ponzi scheme for numerous reasons:

- There are no paid dividends to anyone

- The purpose of using bitcoin isn’t to recruit new participants

- There’s no centralized body that funnels money up to the top

- Unlike Ponzi schemes, Bitcoin retains value and continues to function even if no new participants join the ecosystem

Bitcoin fails the litmus test for a Ponzi scheme in any number of ways. The boring reality is that it is just a value transfer network that grows more useful the more people join it (much like a telephone network grows more valuable the more people are reachable on it).

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#218

Post by oelmekki » Thu, May 04, 2017, 8:24 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #209

oelmekki wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, ok. I see the point, thanks for explaining. That's funny because fairness was exactly what I had in mind to _allow_ insider trading, but using the point of view of fairness between investors and workers, rather than fairness between investors. What would you think about allowing insider trading, but only once during career at company and only if you're not an executive? Or maybe just allowing it for a moderate am…

I think no, it's theft whether you do it once or many times; you are stealing money from investors who cannot make a decision fairly because they don't have the "private" information you do. Insider trading is theft.

Ok, I see. Well, I agree with you there. But I have an other problem here : it's theft as well when people who keep buying and selling property keep profiting on people who actually keep companies running, who keep losing.

Trump, Lepen, what is called populism (I hate that word) feed on that. People feel that what they produce is being stolen. I, for one, don't want to think that finance is a problem. I think it's going too far, though, and that History is taking its revenge (or that it's on a downtrend?).

I require your help here to stop the hate : can you think of something that allows to be fair to both those who own property and those who create its value?

EDIT : or, to get more conceptual : you're fair to everyone, or you're fair to no one. Fairness is not a thing that applies to only a few, it's the exact opposite, by definition.

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#219

Post by koolba » Thu, May 04, 2017, 8:41 PM UTC

vocatus_gate wrote: post #217

koolba wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. What part of a crypto currency with no established usage outside of speculation would exclude it from being labeled as such?

From Black's Law Dictionary: Ponzi Scheme: "...Money from the new investors is used directly to repay or pay interest to earlier investors" Bitcoin does not fit the definition of Ponzi scheme for numerous reasons: - There are no paid dividends to anyone - The purpose of using bitcoin isn’t to recruit new participants - There’s no centralized body that funnels money up to the top - Unlike Ponzi schemes, Bitcoin retain…

We're talking about litecoin, not bitcoin.

The ponzi aspect of it is that it's inherently worthless and people who bought in early are paid off by money (or even bitcoin) coming from later suckers.

Re: Coinbase adds support for Litecoin

#220

Post by erikpukinskis » Thu, May 04, 2017, 10:10 PM UTC

Taek wrote: post #19

lend000 wrote: post #10

It will take significant time and effort to overtake Bitcoin's name recognition and first mover advantage. However, there's also an advantage to being a second mover that can adapt quickly to a changing environment... I doubt Bitcoin will be the supreme crypto-currency in a few years. It's just too implausible that Bitcoin is perfect enough as is, and/or the community will be able to implement any needed changes befo…

Bitcoin has by far the greatest amount of research and intellectual effort driving it, and it's far from a static protocol. It doesn't need to have gotten everything perfect, it needs to change just quickly (or slowly) enough to retain its core value proposition vs. other cryptocurrencies. Maybe it will get replaced, maybe not. But there's no question to me that Bitcoin is by far the most decentralized, most secure,…

> Ethereum offers a lot that Bitcoin does not, but if the valuation were to pass Bitcoin's I think it would be fair to state that it's because the market has chosen to prefer low security, low decentralisation, high (yet unrealized) innovation potential over a decentralized payment system.

It's kind of weird to compare Bitcoin to Ethereum. They are both blockchain-based, but they're in completely different categories. It's like comparing shares in Exxon to an account of Wells Fargo. Sure, you can use them both as a unit of accounting but they're not really the same.

Ethereum is an autonomous app hosting corporation. Bitcoin is an autonomous ledger hosting corporation. They will succeed in their respective markets based on demand for ledgers and apps, the utility of decentralization in those two spaces, and their usability relative to competitors.

Ethers can be used as a currency, but so can oil, corn, and Beenie Babies. Bitcoin's purpose is currency, and the ecosystem around it is optimized for that purpose.

Ethereum's purpose is executing computational contracts, and the ecosystem is optimizing for that. You can compare the two the way you compare boats and fish, but anyone who puts them in the same category without caveat is really missing the bigger picture.