×

41
42

Bitcoin is Supposed to be Litecoin and Litecoin is Supposed to be Monero (self.Monero)

submitted by jmar42

Everyone tries to compare Monero to Bitcoin, but it really should be compared to Litecoin. Any thoughts?

all 59 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]quantum_explorer08 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Monero has to be its own thing and play in its niche: extreme privacy in every choice.

If it does not deviate from this path, there will always be a space for it.

[–]SirArthurPT 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Monero can only be compared to itself.

It's not only on the surface, but even beneath it that makes the difference. Bitcoin, Litecoin, whatever PoW coin is increasingly centralized in mining farms, which produces a point of failure (control those few miners and you control the coin itself).

Being resistant to those mining farms, makes Monero an endless and impossible to win whack-a-mole game.

As for others as PoS, neither P stands for proof, but piece, nor the S for stake, but sh**, highly centralized around early adopters. Only worse than PoS is PoA.

[–]V1K1N6_810 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahahaha love the last paragraph…! I tip my hat to you good sir; I tip my hat!

[–]gr8ful4 60 points61 points  (13 children)

Compared to Monero everything which claims to be a CRYPTO (private/hidden) CURRENCY (fungible money) is a failure.

[–]Uejji 26 points27 points  (12 children)

In this case "crypto" stands for cryptography, which refers to how the ledger is protected and verified.

[–]yasabi 12 points13 points  (11 children)

The root of the prefix "crypto-" in the word "cryptography" is Latin, from Greek "kruptos" meaning "hidden', itself from "kruptein" - "to hide".

[–]olPupper 0 points1 point  (3 children)

is Latin, from Greek?

[–]yasabi 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Romans borrowed a lot of their culture from their Greek neighbors.  And the Latin loanwords were more likely to make it into English than the original Greek variants due to Rome's colonization of the Anglo-Saxons.

[–]olPupper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok sure but cryptos and graphein are both greek words and cryptography has nothing derived from latin?

[–]kfjkullinvrs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Logos currency. By the state of the numbers. I send to you 1111111 lsoeia, in exchange of 001 lsie.

[–]spederan 28 points29 points  (27 children)

Neither Bitcoin nor Litecoin plan to scale onchain, and there isnt really any "fundamental" differences between the two. When Charlie Lee forked Bitcoin to create Litecoin and oh-so-generously give a bunch to himself, all he really did was change the block times and the number of coins. These were constant factors in the code, he simply quadrupled.

Litecoin seems cheap, but thats because nobody uses it or takes it seriously enough to actually exhaust its onchain resources, thus nobody is bidding for that blockchain space auction-style like in Bitcoin.

In my opinion, litecoin is an utter waste of time. A lazy bitcoin testnet with a community of people who bought in and want to get rich (like most of crypto). The lack of onchain scaling is what kills it in my view.

[–]Doublespeo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Totally agree

[–]gr8ful4 0 points1 point  (18 children)

OG PoW:

XMR > BCH > LTC > BTC

[–]yasabi 4 points5 points  (13 children)

Calling bcash "OG" is a bit disingenuous no?

[–]gr8ful4 1 point2 points  (11 children)

Why?

It's PoW.

It has plenty of OG community members, like BTC and XMR. It's a software fork and split. But LTC also is a software fork of BTC with two or 3 parameters changed.

And it actually works better as a medium of exchange from a low fee and on-chain capacity (minus fungibility that BTC and LTC also lack)

[–]yasabi 4 points5 points  (8 children)

There are other PoW coins with oldschool Bitcoiners involved (e.g. GRIN) but that doesn't make them OG.  By 2017 crypto valuation was already on corporate news, OG should mean before that mainstream exposure. IMO PoW coins from 2009-2014 would qualify.

[–]Ur_mothers_keeper 3 points4 points  (1 child)

But grin is a bottom up, from scratch new project. Bcash is supposedly a continuation of the peer to peer digital cash concept as per the bitcoin whitepaper, and so, according to their narrative, a direct continuation of the original bitcoin project. I am sympathetic to this view. It's nuanced. It isn't a "new coin" the same as others, but it is a newer coin in some sense.

[–]yasabi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have to create new outputs, it's a new coin.

And your italicized "supposedly" needs even more emphasis, because while Ver and Wu were waxing poetic about Satoshi's intentions they were also making bank off exploiting the ASICBoost mining loophole that got closed on BTC with the adoption of SegWit.  

Whether or not you take their rhetoric at face value is obviously your choice.  

[–]gr8ful4 1 point2 points  (5 children)

The victors write the history. And in this case BTC has won the blocksize war. But it's still a matter of perspective (and choice) for those who use the tools.

BCH history dates back to 2009?

Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to spend BCH that I bought in 2011.

[–]rbrunner7XMR Contributor 6 points7 points  (2 children)

BCH history dates back to 2009?

Yes, of course. It's a chain fork. The BCH blockchain is the BTC blockchain up to the block of the fork. What you bought as BTC before the fork you can now sell twice: Once as BTC and once as BCH. So much for the absolute limit of 21 million bitcoins, ever :)

[–]snowmanyi 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I mean the market has actively rejected bch and the 21 million limit is treated as such only in BTC.

[–]gr8ful4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” ― Benjamin Graham

This is true for all pairs including Monero which currently sits at multi-year lows against BTC.

[–]yasabi 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This is typical bcasher dishonesty. You didn't buy BCH in 2011, you were airdropped it in 2017 because you bought BTC in 2011.  Despite the technological developments bcash has made to the codebase, this type of framing is deeply ingrained in bcasher culture due to Ver and Wu's strategy of deception.  You're functionally preying on the ignorance of newbies when you perpetuate this. It does you the disservice of turning off all of us who see it.

[–]gr8ful4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not married to a coin, be it BTC, XMR or BCH... From what you write (the victors perspective) I am not sure, that you are sufficiently distanced from all projects to recognize the trade-offs involved in each of those.

Those are merely tools to achieve goals. Like separation of money and state, sound money, priavte money, digital cash, voluntary taxation, protection of minorities, protection of journalists and dissidents,...

I bought P2P electronic cash in 2011, not yet knowing how important fungibility might become in a KYC world. Back then there was no KYC. Bitcoin was sufficiently cheap and pseudonymous for everyday transactions.

Since BTC moved on to become a digital version of gold, how can you claim that what I bought in 2011 is not (also) BCH?

Now we can discuss how I think that Monero is a much better private store of value and private medium of transaction than both BTC and BCH, but I am not sure you would be interested in it.

[–]ScoobaMonsta 0 points1 point  (1 child)

And what bcash is fungible? Delusional 😂

[–]gr8ful4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you misread. BCH, LTC and BTC are all non-fungible.

[–]Doublespeo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calling bcash "OG" is a bit disingenuous no?

It is tho.

It didnt start in 2017, the goal was to keep the original design.

[–]spederan 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Imo, neither litecoin nor bitcoin are better than each other. They are functionally and fundamentally identical. Litecoin == Bitcoin. If you bought one, you might as well have bought the other. Litecoin might be slightly better for transacting and slightly worse for "gains", but thats purely circumstantial open to change at any time.

Although if you are comparing them in terms of Proof-of-Work, Litecoin shouldnt even make the list, because Charlie premined it, invalidating its claim to a fair and just distribution.

So XMR > BCH > The Trash Can (of which contains BTC somewhere near the top and LTC somewhere near the bottom)

[–]yasabi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This was the case until the Grin developer David Burkett added MimbleWimble Extension Blocks, which was a multiyear effort and is a substantial new development. That being said, its still opt-in and thus a suboptimal solution.

[–]tromp 1 point2 points  (1 child)

> Litecoin shouldnt even make the list, because Charlie premined it

Not so much premined, as instamined: https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ch9nli/charlie_lee_deletes_tweet_after_people_expose_the/

[–]spederan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theres not a meaningful difference. Arbitrarily assigning yourself coins 1 second before project launch or 1 second after are equivalent. Its just giving yourself a bunch of free money. "Premine" casually and colloquially refers to all acts of coin emission not earned fairly and in a decentralized manner. 

This also reminds me of the ETH guys saying most of Ethereum wasnt "premined" because they simply redefine premine to not include coins sold. Its printing money out of thin air and making developers rich, thats the problem.

[–]LowOwl4312 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What non-private currency would you say is best for buying and then changing to XMR with the lowest fees?

[–]gr8ful4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anything that works (high acceptance and low fees). It mainly boils down to LTC and BCH. That's why BCH<>XMR atomic swaps are an important development.

[–]I_talk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bitcoin sucks compared to Litecoin.

[–]Mugenski 0 points1 point  (2 children)

When Charlie Lee forked Bitcoin to create Litecoin and oh-so-generously give a bunch to himself

Possibly mistaking naivety for malice. Sure it could have been intentional but it's more likely that there was significantly more hash power thrown at the network than expected. Looking back from 2024 to 2011 in this space isn't exactly a cut and dry thing to do. Heck Charlie had LTC posted up and had people voting on a release date. If he gave himself coins as you claim, he gave them to the community at the same rate as well.

I think these bitpay stats are interesting

[–]spederan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Accidentally creating an unfair coin distribution doesnt somehow magically make the coin fairly distributed. My issue isnt with Charlie Lee, its with the ridiculous and unnecessary existence of a shameless Bitcoin clone propped up by a dishonest marketing gimmick. 

Although one can argue, being the creator of the project, he couldve simply relaunched it. Or at least burned his unfair coins. Nope, he sure was happy to keep them! And sell the top on all his followers.

The project was a cheap amaterurish knockoff of Bitcoin, and Litecoin is going to be forever remembered for its misguided goals and botched launch.

[–]pet2pet1982 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To Bitcoin. Total coin supply of Monero compares precisely to Bitcoin one. More, till year 2040 it remains slightly lesser than Bitcoin supply.

[–]MisplacedPhilosopher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Litecoin has a very high hash rate. It is also used for transactions more than most top cryptocurrencies. On BitPay 38% transactions happened in Litecoin.

On the flip side, it is sad that it is not ASIC resistant. It is also bad that the founder rewarded himself (but he sold all his Litecoin). No doubt he was greedy.

Monero will really do much better once it is delisted from Binance. That uncertainty and the fact that some crypto merchants like Bitrefill are not accepting Monero is probably holding people back.

For now, Litecoin is a good option as spending money as it can easily be swapped for Monero.

[–]TripleReward 2 points3 points  (0 children)

LTC is just paid btc testnet, dev is scammer.

[–]_-_agenda_-_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it really should be compared

Actually, there is no rule on what you "should" compare.

You can compare monero with a chocolate cake if you want.

[–]smallbluetext 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? How does this even have upvotes when you didn't even explain what you're trying to say. How is Litecoin in any way comparable to Monero? Litecoin is a Bitcoin fork with all the numbers juiced to make it faster and cheaper to transact. It is literally Bitcoin with different numbers.

[–]anycolo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Litecoin looks really attractive with that mimblewimble stuff. Seems nobody has broken it .. yet.