This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Litecoin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Uleksite.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Litecoin.org is not a reliable source. You're going to need to find secondary coverage from somewhere if this page is going to stay alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong ( talk • contribs)
I just added two major news articles one featuring Litecoin from MIT Technology Review and an Economist article from Friday that mentions it. Rancor60 ( talk) 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
When it can be proven it does, it can be returned to mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The correct symbol for Litecoin is the Ł. This was originally proposed on this Bitcoin Talk thread. Further, the Ł Litecoin symbol can be seen in common use on the Litecoin Global Exchange. However, attempting to add this symbol to the infobox results in an L character without the slash. I'm unsure if this is a bug in the infobox code. — Wikijeff ( talk) 00:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This topic seems more notable now (due to new sources), so I'll move it back to mainspace. Cliff12345 ( talk) 22:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
First point:
Litecoin is almost identical to bitcoin from a technical standpoint. There are literally two changes in bitcoin's codebase, three if you include a different genesis block. Describing it as "almost identical", or "identical apart from two changed parameters" is accurate and objective.
Second:
There is no credible source verifying that Scrypt is a "more mathetically secure hashing algorithm". This is false advertising on Wikipedia for financial gain and therefore not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taktao ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you make a criticism section for litecoin where you can discuss claims that it's almost identical 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I've made a request for comment, we don't seem to be getting anywhere. 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
here are some useful references for the article: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513661/bitcoin-isnt-the-only-cryptocurrency-in-town/ http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Kein-Chance-auf-ein-Monopol-1842133.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bitcoin-trotz-Hackerattacken-auf-naechstem-Rekordhoch-1837180.html http://bitcoinmagazine.com/trace-mayer-on-fox-business-why-bitcoin-is-just-getting-started/ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9238328/Bitcoin_rival_Ripple_looks_to_make_waves http://dustcoin.com/mining http://libertycrier.com/forum/top-5-things-you-should-know-about-litecoin/ http://thegenerallifeblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/3-reasons-why-i-now-like-litecoin.html http://tedstake.monumentalnetwork.com/bitcoin-and-litecoin/index.jsp http://t3n.de/news/3-bitcoin-alternativen-litecoin-459549/ http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/18/bitcoin-by-numbers-is-online-currency-a-bursting-bubble-or-the-future-of-money-3619419/ http://www.oroyfinanzas.com/2013/04/diferencias-bitcoin-litecoin/ http://www.pianetatech.it/internet/attualita/bitcoin-non-e-lunica-moneta-virtuale-in-campo-ppcoin-e-litecoin-due-alternative.html http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/columns/casey-research/3689/the-money-wars-3689.html http://www.tagblatt.ch/aktuell/digital/Drei-Alternativen-zu-Bitcoin;art119505,3370967 http://www.zdnet.com/zdnet-app-wrap-april-8-2013-7000013650/ http://computerworld.nl/e-commerce/76078-10-alternatieven-voor-bitcoin http://tmgonlinemedia.nl/consent/consent/?return=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraaf.nl%2Fdft%2Fgoeroes%2Fthijsvanuchelen%2F21501473%2F__Silicon_Valley_in_virtueel_geld__.html&clienttime=1366740495975&version=0&detect=true 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The main reason for the request for comment is that I and a few others ( User:CryptoAddicto, User:Strike_Eagle, User:Coin12349) want to include information about the memory intensive nature/confirmation times and how some claim this makes litecoin superior to bitcoin, User:Taktao does not want this. Taktao also wishes to say that litecoin is almost identical to bitcoin, whereas I and the others mentioned want so say that it's similar. We haven't really gotten anywhere (just reverting each others edits repeatedly). 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
while talking about pricing volatility, especially against bitcoin, could be interesting and relevant, we can't put a quoted price in there "as of a date." it's shot up dollars or more at a time in the timespan of a few minutes, several times this month alone. litecoin is simply FAR too volatile to cite anything concrete about pricing.
72.129.146.14 ( talk) 04:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no rational value behind Litecoin in any sense (contrast to Bitcoin's innovation and viability as a functioning currency), and gets its value from misrepresentations. Is a minor pump and dump scheme really content for Wikipedia? -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 08:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It lacks a single reference from a notable source that backs up the assertions made therein. What is the normal time frame to allow such references to be attached? Statecraft ( talk) 19:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if I may have gone off topic in some places, but this person has been harassing and bullying Litecoin and other cryptocurrency enthusiasts for months. On forums and on IRC. And yet, his intentional addition to the Litecoin Wikipedia article in effort to discredit the project still does not qualify as vandalism.
CryptoDefender (
talk)
07:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
REFERENCES:
"Luke-Jr believes that Litecoin has a potential of damaging Bitcoin and has previously threatened to attack the network in a hostile manner." is inaccurate: I believe MtGox's action of promoting Litecoin will be damaging to Bitcoin's reputation because of MtGox's close association with Bitcoin. Outside of the MtGox context, Litecoin is somewhat potentially harmful, but not in a way that would be likely to harm Bitcoin's reputation. Specifically, when Litecoin is finally exposed in practice to have been a pump and dump (that is, after it ends and people en masse realise what happened), they will see MtGox's promotion of it and its close relation to Bitcoin, and think Bitcoin is itself a pump and dump, despite the fact that Bitcoin has innovation and potential behind it. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Luke-Jr has made multiple attempts to discredit the Litecoin network, mainly by declaring it as a Pump and Dump Scheme on the Bitcoin Wiki page." is also inaccurate. I don't 'declare' Litecoin a pump & dump to discredit it, I do so because it is true. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Luke-Jr has also made attempts to suppress introduction of other cryptocurrencies by editing Bitcoin Wiki RFC page and stating that instead of creating competing projects, developers should improve Bitcoin project." is very misleading at least: I added a paragraph encouraging people to contribute to Bitcoin rather than compete (it is a Bitcoin wiki, after all) - I did not suppress anything. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Such behavior is viewed by many as a discrediting tactic in effort to discredit Litecoin as a viable Open Source project." is talking about others' subjective views, which are wrong. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"People have questioned Luke-Jr's tactics" is a link to a thread on a forum consisting mostly of trolls that I'd not seen before. It has nothing to do with me. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Luke-Jr has previously circumvented attempts of other development teams to launch their own instances of Open Source cryptocurrencies by using his mining pool "Eglius" to attack networks of these crypto currencies while they were in their initial stages of development and were vulnerable to 51% attacks." is not correct. I personally (independently from my pool) shutdown a newly-announced 'scam-coin' by legitimately following its own network rules (not performing any actual attacks). -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Given Luke-Jr's commitment to the Bitcoin project and his involvement into multiple Bitcoin related projects including early Bitcoin ASIC mining (which is extremely profitable) it is understandable that if this person thinks that Litecoin adoption will damage Bitcoin's value or price, he will go to extended lengths to discredit any such project." is misleading. While you might consider it 'understandable', I consider immoral 'extended lengths' to be sinful and I would never do anything of that sort as is implied here. I will, however, not hesistate to speak the truth about scams such as Litecoin. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You also neglect to mention my involvement with other (legitimate) altcoins. I myself created the first altcoin, and, while I disagree with the ideals of Namecoin and Freicoin, I recognize their legitimacy and gladly support and encourage their development. It is absurd to claim that my opposition to Litecoin has anything to do with it being a 'competitor' to Bitcoin. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The whole point of Wikipedia is not to make claims that do not have reliable sources. So far your arguments and claims have no reliable sources or references. Please provide references that can back your personal opinion or retract it. CryptoDefender ( talk) 19:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It is objectively false to claim that Litecoin transactions confirm faster than Bitcoin transactions, or that its mining algorithm is easier for normal computers. Cliff12345 wrongly accuses me of having a conflict of interest as means to "justify" adding these false claims back in. Merely using a different algorithm is also not, in itself, a feature. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 17:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
LukeJr has removed my feedback from the talk page. What gives him the right to remove other people's comments on Wikipedia talk pages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ALitecoin&diff=552778869&oldid=552776245 (Last entry)
CryptoDefender ( talk) 20:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
RETRACTING COMPLAINT due to Luke's excuse of accidental editing. CryptoDefender ( talk) 00:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
As seen in this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Litecoin&action=edit&undoafter=552808356&undo=552810637
Luke-Jr has updated criticism section while citing references to Bitcoin Wiki page that he not only contributes to but from which he has originally copied the criticism section (that he has created).
etc.
There is nothing wrong with criticism as long as it is unbiased and presented in neutral manner. This is not the case or the goal in this instance. CryptoDefender
The article says:
"FPGA and ASIC implementations are more expensive to create for scrypt than for SHA-256, which is used in the Bitcoin protocol. [1]"
Although the statement is relative "more expensive than for SHA-256" this comparison is non-sensical in the context of competitive cryptocoin mining. Suggest removing it.
References
These hash functions can be tuned to require rapid access a very large memory space, making them particularly hard to optimize to specialized massively parallel hardware.
VinceSamios ( talk) 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In "Differences from Bitcoin" section this article states that Scrypt is used as the proof-of-work algorithm for Litecoin. However, in the scrypt wikipedia article it states that "It is a misunderstanding to say Litecoin uses the scrypt proof-of-work". I'm not sure which is correct, but its a pretty annoying discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.220.26.234 ( talk) 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a revert war; someone needs to straighten this chap out. 96.46.193.236 ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Litecoin&oldid=591378509 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Litecoin&oldid=591498376 96.46.193.236 ( talk) 02:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
the following is unsourced. moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them and citing them
A peer-to-peer network similar to Bitcoin's handles Litecoin's transactions, balances and issuance through scrypt, the proof-of-work scheme (Litecoins are issued when a small enough hash value is found, at which point a block is created, the process of finding these hashes and creating blocks is called mining). The issuing rate forms a geometric series, and the rate halves every 840,000 blocks, roughly every four years, reaching a final total of 84 million LTC.
Payments in the Litecoin network are made to addresses, which are Base58-encoded hashes of users' public keys. They are strings of 35 numbers and letters which always begin with the letter L.
Litecoin transactions are recorded in the Litecoin blockchain (a ledger held by most clients). A new block is added to the blockchain roughly every 2.5 minutes (whenever a small enough hash value is found for the proof-of-work scheme). A transaction is usually considered complete after six blocks, or 15 minutes, though for smaller transactions, fewer than six blocks may be needed for adequate security.
-- Jytdog ( talk) 01:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Litecoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Kjerish: I propose that the template for this article be changed to Template:Infobox cryptocurrency which is now also being used over at Bitcoin ....Thoughts, comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the current logo being used is not the official logo. Or at least I have never seen it before. I think we should chop it and only us the "L" which I have seen many times. French wikipedia is using a logo i have seen before. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Specialedits: you made this edit and the first source makes no mention of litecoin. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH violation. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Litecoin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Uleksite.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Litecoin.org is not a reliable source. You're going to need to find secondary coverage from somewhere if this page is going to stay alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong ( talk • contribs)
I just added two major news articles one featuring Litecoin from MIT Technology Review and an Economist article from Friday that mentions it. Rancor60 ( talk) 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
When it can be proven it does, it can be returned to mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The correct symbol for Litecoin is the Ł. This was originally proposed on this Bitcoin Talk thread. Further, the Ł Litecoin symbol can be seen in common use on the Litecoin Global Exchange. However, attempting to add this symbol to the infobox results in an L character without the slash. I'm unsure if this is a bug in the infobox code. — Wikijeff ( talk) 00:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This topic seems more notable now (due to new sources), so I'll move it back to mainspace. Cliff12345 ( talk) 22:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
First point:
Litecoin is almost identical to bitcoin from a technical standpoint. There are literally two changes in bitcoin's codebase, three if you include a different genesis block. Describing it as "almost identical", or "identical apart from two changed parameters" is accurate and objective.
Second:
There is no credible source verifying that Scrypt is a "more mathetically secure hashing algorithm". This is false advertising on Wikipedia for financial gain and therefore not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taktao ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you make a criticism section for litecoin where you can discuss claims that it's almost identical 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I've made a request for comment, we don't seem to be getting anywhere. 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
here are some useful references for the article: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513661/bitcoin-isnt-the-only-cryptocurrency-in-town/ http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Kein-Chance-auf-ein-Monopol-1842133.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bitcoin-trotz-Hackerattacken-auf-naechstem-Rekordhoch-1837180.html http://bitcoinmagazine.com/trace-mayer-on-fox-business-why-bitcoin-is-just-getting-started/ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9238328/Bitcoin_rival_Ripple_looks_to_make_waves http://dustcoin.com/mining http://libertycrier.com/forum/top-5-things-you-should-know-about-litecoin/ http://thegenerallifeblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/3-reasons-why-i-now-like-litecoin.html http://tedstake.monumentalnetwork.com/bitcoin-and-litecoin/index.jsp http://t3n.de/news/3-bitcoin-alternativen-litecoin-459549/ http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/18/bitcoin-by-numbers-is-online-currency-a-bursting-bubble-or-the-future-of-money-3619419/ http://www.oroyfinanzas.com/2013/04/diferencias-bitcoin-litecoin/ http://www.pianetatech.it/internet/attualita/bitcoin-non-e-lunica-moneta-virtuale-in-campo-ppcoin-e-litecoin-due-alternative.html http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/columns/casey-research/3689/the-money-wars-3689.html http://www.tagblatt.ch/aktuell/digital/Drei-Alternativen-zu-Bitcoin;art119505,3370967 http://www.zdnet.com/zdnet-app-wrap-april-8-2013-7000013650/ http://computerworld.nl/e-commerce/76078-10-alternatieven-voor-bitcoin http://tmgonlinemedia.nl/consent/consent/?return=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraaf.nl%2Fdft%2Fgoeroes%2Fthijsvanuchelen%2F21501473%2F__Silicon_Valley_in_virtueel_geld__.html&clienttime=1366740495975&version=0&detect=true 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The main reason for the request for comment is that I and a few others ( User:CryptoAddicto, User:Strike_Eagle, User:Coin12349) want to include information about the memory intensive nature/confirmation times and how some claim this makes litecoin superior to bitcoin, User:Taktao does not want this. Taktao also wishes to say that litecoin is almost identical to bitcoin, whereas I and the others mentioned want so say that it's similar. We haven't really gotten anywhere (just reverting each others edits repeatedly). 198.144.156.55 ( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
while talking about pricing volatility, especially against bitcoin, could be interesting and relevant, we can't put a quoted price in there "as of a date." it's shot up dollars or more at a time in the timespan of a few minutes, several times this month alone. litecoin is simply FAR too volatile to cite anything concrete about pricing.
72.129.146.14 ( talk) 04:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no rational value behind Litecoin in any sense (contrast to Bitcoin's innovation and viability as a functioning currency), and gets its value from misrepresentations. Is a minor pump and dump scheme really content for Wikipedia? -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 08:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It lacks a single reference from a notable source that backs up the assertions made therein. What is the normal time frame to allow such references to be attached? Statecraft ( talk) 19:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if I may have gone off topic in some places, but this person has been harassing and bullying Litecoin and other cryptocurrency enthusiasts for months. On forums and on IRC. And yet, his intentional addition to the Litecoin Wikipedia article in effort to discredit the project still does not qualify as vandalism.
CryptoDefender (
talk)
07:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
REFERENCES:
"Luke-Jr believes that Litecoin has a potential of damaging Bitcoin and has previously threatened to attack the network in a hostile manner." is inaccurate: I believe MtGox's action of promoting Litecoin will be damaging to Bitcoin's reputation because of MtGox's close association with Bitcoin. Outside of the MtGox context, Litecoin is somewhat potentially harmful, but not in a way that would be likely to harm Bitcoin's reputation. Specifically, when Litecoin is finally exposed in practice to have been a pump and dump (that is, after it ends and people en masse realise what happened), they will see MtGox's promotion of it and its close relation to Bitcoin, and think Bitcoin is itself a pump and dump, despite the fact that Bitcoin has innovation and potential behind it. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Luke-Jr has made multiple attempts to discredit the Litecoin network, mainly by declaring it as a Pump and Dump Scheme on the Bitcoin Wiki page." is also inaccurate. I don't 'declare' Litecoin a pump & dump to discredit it, I do so because it is true. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Luke-Jr has also made attempts to suppress introduction of other cryptocurrencies by editing Bitcoin Wiki RFC page and stating that instead of creating competing projects, developers should improve Bitcoin project." is very misleading at least: I added a paragraph encouraging people to contribute to Bitcoin rather than compete (it is a Bitcoin wiki, after all) - I did not suppress anything. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Such behavior is viewed by many as a discrediting tactic in effort to discredit Litecoin as a viable Open Source project." is talking about others' subjective views, which are wrong. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"People have questioned Luke-Jr's tactics" is a link to a thread on a forum consisting mostly of trolls that I'd not seen before. It has nothing to do with me. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Luke-Jr has previously circumvented attempts of other development teams to launch their own instances of Open Source cryptocurrencies by using his mining pool "Eglius" to attack networks of these crypto currencies while they were in their initial stages of development and were vulnerable to 51% attacks." is not correct. I personally (independently from my pool) shutdown a newly-announced 'scam-coin' by legitimately following its own network rules (not performing any actual attacks). -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Given Luke-Jr's commitment to the Bitcoin project and his involvement into multiple Bitcoin related projects including early Bitcoin ASIC mining (which is extremely profitable) it is understandable that if this person thinks that Litecoin adoption will damage Bitcoin's value or price, he will go to extended lengths to discredit any such project." is misleading. While you might consider it 'understandable', I consider immoral 'extended lengths' to be sinful and I would never do anything of that sort as is implied here. I will, however, not hesistate to speak the truth about scams such as Litecoin. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You also neglect to mention my involvement with other (legitimate) altcoins. I myself created the first altcoin, and, while I disagree with the ideals of Namecoin and Freicoin, I recognize their legitimacy and gladly support and encourage their development. It is absurd to claim that my opposition to Litecoin has anything to do with it being a 'competitor' to Bitcoin. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 20:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The whole point of Wikipedia is not to make claims that do not have reliable sources. So far your arguments and claims have no reliable sources or references. Please provide references that can back your personal opinion or retract it. CryptoDefender ( talk) 19:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It is objectively false to claim that Litecoin transactions confirm faster than Bitcoin transactions, or that its mining algorithm is easier for normal computers. Cliff12345 wrongly accuses me of having a conflict of interest as means to "justify" adding these false claims back in. Merely using a different algorithm is also not, in itself, a feature. -- Luke-Jr ( talk) 17:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
LukeJr has removed my feedback from the talk page. What gives him the right to remove other people's comments on Wikipedia talk pages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ALitecoin&diff=552778869&oldid=552776245 (Last entry)
CryptoDefender ( talk) 20:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
RETRACTING COMPLAINT due to Luke's excuse of accidental editing. CryptoDefender ( talk) 00:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
As seen in this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Litecoin&action=edit&undoafter=552808356&undo=552810637
Luke-Jr has updated criticism section while citing references to Bitcoin Wiki page that he not only contributes to but from which he has originally copied the criticism section (that he has created).
etc.
There is nothing wrong with criticism as long as it is unbiased and presented in neutral manner. This is not the case or the goal in this instance. CryptoDefender
The article says:
"FPGA and ASIC implementations are more expensive to create for scrypt than for SHA-256, which is used in the Bitcoin protocol. [1]"
Although the statement is relative "more expensive than for SHA-256" this comparison is non-sensical in the context of competitive cryptocoin mining. Suggest removing it.
References
These hash functions can be tuned to require rapid access a very large memory space, making them particularly hard to optimize to specialized massively parallel hardware.
VinceSamios ( talk) 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In "Differences from Bitcoin" section this article states that Scrypt is used as the proof-of-work algorithm for Litecoin. However, in the scrypt wikipedia article it states that "It is a misunderstanding to say Litecoin uses the scrypt proof-of-work". I'm not sure which is correct, but its a pretty annoying discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.220.26.234 ( talk) 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a revert war; someone needs to straighten this chap out. 96.46.193.236 ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Litecoin&oldid=591378509 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Litecoin&oldid=591498376 96.46.193.236 ( talk) 02:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
the following is unsourced. moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them and citing them
A peer-to-peer network similar to Bitcoin's handles Litecoin's transactions, balances and issuance through scrypt, the proof-of-work scheme (Litecoins are issued when a small enough hash value is found, at which point a block is created, the process of finding these hashes and creating blocks is called mining). The issuing rate forms a geometric series, and the rate halves every 840,000 blocks, roughly every four years, reaching a final total of 84 million LTC.
Payments in the Litecoin network are made to addresses, which are Base58-encoded hashes of users' public keys. They are strings of 35 numbers and letters which always begin with the letter L.
Litecoin transactions are recorded in the Litecoin blockchain (a ledger held by most clients). A new block is added to the blockchain roughly every 2.5 minutes (whenever a small enough hash value is found for the proof-of-work scheme). A transaction is usually considered complete after six blocks, or 15 minutes, though for smaller transactions, fewer than six blocks may be needed for adequate security.
-- Jytdog ( talk) 01:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Litecoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Kjerish: I propose that the template for this article be changed to Template:Infobox cryptocurrency which is now also being used over at Bitcoin ....Thoughts, comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the current logo being used is not the official logo. Or at least I have never seen it before. I think we should chop it and only us the "L" which I have seen many times. French wikipedia is using a logo i have seen before. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Specialedits: you made this edit and the first source makes no mention of litecoin. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH violation. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)