From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Secondary Sources[edit] 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 (talkcontribs)

Agreed. As of right now, a Google News search for Litecoin results in nothing. This alone doesn't mean anything, but it would be easier to defend this new currency's notability if there were more reliable secondary sources talking about it right now. Talk within the Bitcoin community seems to be easy to find, but that's not generally useful. --Ds13 (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Is a subject notable if it's widely discussed in a huge circle or two? I mean, high schools get articles for similar reasons.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
A Google News search for "Litecoin" results in six pages of articles which include Litecoin in their contents, furthermore they include an article about Mt Gox, the worlds largest Bitcoin exchange, including LTC in the future to be traded for USD. Furthermore a detailed study has shown the LTC market cap to be 69 Million USD ( Surely, an emergent technological phenomenon with a market cap of 69 Million USD and which is soon to be traded on the world's largest BTC / USD exchange deserves a detailed Wikipedia article? (CryptoAddicto (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)).

Currently, this article has no significant press coverage and/or notability.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the above section there are plenty of News Sources which mention Litecoin. (CryptoAddicto (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

The Litecoin Symbol[edit]

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)

Returning to mainspace[edit]

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)

Uncited and false promotion material is not appropriate for Wikipedia[edit]

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.


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 (talkcontribs) 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • the different hashing algorithms in use make litecoin different from bitcoin. So does different confimation time. Scrypt is more secure, it can't so easily be done by an ASIC/FPGA, since it has very high memory requirements. so it's more secure, one person can't easily come on with an asic and have half the hashing power. (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not write that it is identical to bitcoin. A different hashing algorithm is just one of two changes from bitcoin. This makes it "almost identical" to bitcoin, which is what I wrote. "Almost identical" is not the same thing as "identical", so please stop claiming that I wrote the latter. Almost every line of code in litecoin's source code is from bitcoin's codebase.
As for Scrypt, it is NOT more secure. There is no evidence that making it more difficult to develop a FPGA/ASIC for it makes it more secure. These kind of speculative claims don't belong on Wikipeida.
In fact, Scrypt is less widely used and has been less tested than SHA256, so a case could be made that it's less secure. Taktao (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at scrypt Such a trade off often exists in computer algorithms: you can increase speed at the cost of using more memory, or decrease memory requirements at the cost of performing more operations and taking longer. The idea behind scrypt is to deliberately make this trade off costly in either direction. Thus an attacker could use an implementation that doesn't require many resources (and can therefore be massively parallelized with limited expense) but runs very slowly, or they could use an implementation that runs more quickly but has very large memory requirements and is therefore more expensive to parallelize. the point is that you need to spend huge amounts of money in order to meet the memory requirements. (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't support the implication of your claim that it's widely accepted as being more secure. It's more difficult to do using parallelized processes, and the design goal was to make it more secure, but there's no consensus that this approach actually makes it "more secure". Furthermore, litecoin's implementation of Scrypt uses a small scrypt size, so the claim that it's memory hard is questionable Taktao (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
If it costs more money/more computer power to form some sort of attack on litecoin, then it must be more secure, attackers have to spend more money to cause harm. It must be at least a good bit more taxing on memory than other proof of work schemes, as the litecoin hash rate is far lower than any of the sha ones, despite being bigger than all but bitcoin. (( at the bottom) (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It costs more to develop an FPGA/ASIC, not to attack litecoin. Also, costing more to develop specialized hardware will make it easier for a wealthy attacker to get a monopoly over litecoin by being the only one able to afford to develop ASICs for it. This would make it less secure. Wikipedia is not a place to put personal opinions that are contested by others Taktao (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you make a criticism section for litecoin where you can discuss claims that it's almost identical (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a criticism, it's a relevant fact about it. Its codebase is almost entirely derived from bitcoin. An article describing it should mention this Taktao (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made a request for comment, we don't seem to be getting anywhere. (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that's the best thing to do Taktao (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This is minor semantics and I have no problem with not mentioning that Scrypt is more secure than Bitcoin's algorithm unless a credible source can be found which supports this. The important thing is to be working on the article as Litecoin is a significant technological phenomenon which deserves a detailed Wikipedia article(CryptoAddicto (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC))


here are some useful references for the article:;art119505,3370967 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a response to my comment. If so, first of all those references are not all credible news stories: some are blog posts, and second, the reliable news sources do not support the claims made, and do not refute the fact that litecoin is "almost identical" to bitcoin. In fact, one of the referenced articles, from the Economist, goes as far as it calling it a "clone" of bitcoin. --Taktao (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't a response, the response post is above. (this is just to suggest references which could be used to create information on litecoin) (talk) 16:02, 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). (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - It obviously should mention the differences between proofs of work, and the implications of that. But it should be obvious that those discussions need to stop short of making claims of superiority of one over the other. This is an easy answer, from what I can see. If there needs to be discussion of those implications then it needs to be done in a balanced way. Shadowjams (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Shadowjams is correct. Differences that have secondary sourcing should be noted in the article. Claims from supporters about how those differences make Litecoin superior may also be noted, but such claims must be attributed to supporters (e.g. "supporters claim that ..."). LK (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    Well put. And I'm somewhat familiar with both btc and ltc... the issues you guys are debating are very much up in the air at the moment. The only neutral way to discuss this is how LK describes it. Shadowjams (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we simply say in the article that this issue is currently being debated in the Crypto community? As this seems to be what is actually occuring. I also agree that where no reference can be found the wording should be "supporters claim" etc etc. If credible sources are found for either point of view they can be included. Obviously regarding transaction and confirmation times the very code could be referenced as this is a cold, hard, mathematical certainty due to the code of Litecoin. (CryptoAddicto (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
  • Comment from user invited by RfC bot. It doesn't matter what individuals uses want in the article; it matters what reliable sources say about the topic. If reliable sources say litecoin is superior to bitcoin, then include that. If reliable sources say litecoin is nearly identical to bitcoin, then include that. If reliable sources say litecoin is inferior to bitcoin, then include that. If reliable sources disagree, include all viewpoints. If reliable sources say nothing on the topic, do not include anything, as that would be original research. As others note above, such claims should be attributed to who claims them, and not written in the encyclopedias voice. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Please research and study the reliable sources on this topic, then report what they say. Opinions don't matter unless they've been reported in reliable sources. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We really cannot source even a rough price at all in the article.[edit]

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. (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bitcoin Wikipedia article refers to changes in BTC's price over time and mentions its volatility - so there is no reason the same cannot be done here for Litecoin. Bitcoin prices are just as volatile if not more so than LTC (CryptoAddicto (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

Should a pump and dump scheme really get a wikipedia page?[edit]

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)

Your assertion that it is a pump and dump scheme needs support from reliable sources. Litecoin has attracted ongoing media coverage which establishes notability, unlike the criticism section which lacks any references. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This is nothing more than your own personal opinion, which is shared by absolutely nobody else of repute. Muldrake (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As a cryptocurrency expert who has studied Litecoin's design, I consider myself to be a reliable source/reference. --Luke-Jr (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I consider myself to be a reliable source/reference, Wikipedia doesn't operate in this manner (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Expert_editors). Cliff12345 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"[15:44] <luke-jr> coblee: I don't pretend to know how scrypt works." ( line 72, Log date: Fri Jul 27 2012) - It is a learning process for all of us, do not proclaim yourself an expert in the area you did not know anything about less then a year ago. CryptoDefender (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The last thing any Bitcoin advocate who has any stake in Bitcoin should be doing is referring to another cryptographic currency as a pump-and-dump scheme.
Like-Jr Litecoin has proved itself as a viable coin. If you wanna throw stones, go throw them at CHNCoin or Novacoin or Feathercoin (true pump and dump coins by design)- 5mil (Also, general concensus would probably show that you have not been knowledgeable of litecoin, and have in fact attacked it without knowledge from the beginning. ) Should anyone really ever listen to Luke Jr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a credible source for this claim Luke? If so in the interests of objectivity we can include this as a minority extremist viewpoint - but I do not think there are any credible references for this claim (unreferenced speculation on the Bitcoin wiki is not a credible source)(CryptoAddicto (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

Remove the Criticism section[edit]

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 would give it a few days considering it was added yesterday. Maybe towards the end of the week if it remains unreferenced it should be removed. There isn't really a normal time frame. If the article was more obscure and edited less often it may be appropriate to wait longer. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. However, while waiting, please take your time to examine (in detail) the following section ("Criticism section details, explanation and history"). CryptoDefender (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've undone an edit which appeared to put a lot of wrong, irrelevant or biased information into the criticism section, as I think this improves the section. I think that Litecoin should have a criticism section however, as not everyone supports it (though I agree that we should try to find some references). Perhaps an advantages section could be added too? (this is the edit I made Cliff12345 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if there are credible references for the criticisms than I suppose they can be included like anything else on Wikipedia, but at this stage I am not aware of any. (CryptoAddicto (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

Criticism section details, explanation and history[edit]

I would just like to add that Litecoin has a growing ecosystem of its own. much like Bitcoin in its earlier days, some of which can be seen here: Luke's notion (with absolutely no refernces or credible sources) that LTC is a pump and dump scam coin is a subjective one and seems to go against the objective reality of what is actually occurring in the alternative cryptocurrency space. (CryptoAddicto (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
  • Luke-Jr (who has added the Criticism Pump and Dump section) is one of the Bitcoin developers and most active project contributors[1].
  • Luke-Jr believes that Litecoin has a potential of damaging Bitcoin and has previously threatened to attack the network in a hostile manner[2].
  • 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[3]. Multiple attempts have been made by both Bitcoin and Litecoin community members to change the Wiki content only to find it repeatedly reverted by Luke-Jr[4][5]. Removal has been made with statements such as "Stop portraying Litecoin as legit. it isn't, it's a scam"[6]
  • 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[7].
  • Such behavior is viewed by many as a discrediting tactic in effort to discredit Litecoin as a viable Open Source project. As of 2012-04-28, none of the statements by Luke-Jr on any Wiki pages contain any viable references.
  • People have questioned Luke-Jr's tactics[8]
  • Luke-Jr has previously circumvented attempts of other development teams to launch their own instances of Open Source cryptocurrencies while they were in their initial stages of development and were vulnerable to 51% attacks[9]. As seen from the reference, use of the pool to attack another cryptocurrency network was done without consent of miners, even though LukeJr stated that doing this had no effect on the earnings of miners involved.
  • Given Luke-Jr's commitment to the Bitcoin project and his involvement into multiple Bitcoin related projects including early Bitcoin ASIC mining[10](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.
  • Given Bitcoin startup date of 2009-01-03[11] and Litecoin startup date of 2011-10-07[12] and that both network mine ½ of their currency total in the first 4 years, as of 2013-04, more then 50% of Bitcoins have been mined and posessed by individuals, while only 20% of Litecoins have been mined. Due to 1:4 production ratio, this roughly represents 9 million Bitcoins and 16.5 million Litecoins. Litecoin network will reach 50% of mined currency around Oct 2015. If anything, given recent attention of the media, this gives Litecoin potential to have a much more fair distribution then Bitcoin.

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)

  1. ^ "Bitcoin Contributors". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  2. ^ "FreeNode IRC #litecoin-dev Log". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  3. ^ "Bitcoin Wiki Criticism of Litecoin". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  4. ^ "Litecoin Wikipedia Page History". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  5. ^ "Reddit thread discussing Luke-Jr's actions". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  6. ^ "Bitcoin Wiki changes by Luke-Jr". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  7. ^ "Bitcointalk - Bitcoin Wiki Alt-chain release RFC". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  8. ^ "Bitcointalk - Questioning Luke-Jr tactics". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  9. ^ "Bitcointalk - Destruction of Coiledcoin". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  10. ^ "Luke-Jr Butterfly Labs ASIC Blog". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  11. ^ "Bitcoin Genesis Block". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  12. ^ "Litecoin Genesis Block". Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
Thanks for making that abundantly clear. I can't see the criticism section staying for much longer. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
While parts of CryptoDefender's comments are correct, his summary is also full of false ad hominems, which I presume I don't need to bother correcting as ad hominems should be irrelevant anyway. Of course, as a responsible member of society, I will do what I can to stop scammers from taking advantage of people. While there are legitimate cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin, none of them have established notability. Litecoin, while perhaps notable, is *not* one of those, and is clearly a pump and dump scheme. --Luke-Jr (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Given these references, I suspect there is a conflict of interest here. Cliff12345 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I also just found this: User_talk:Luke-Jr#Conflict_of_Interest_Report which as serves as more evidence of a conflict of interest. Cliff12345 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The "references" here are not relevant: of course a cryptocurrency expert is likely to be contributing toward the only semi-mainstream cryptocurrency (ignoring the troll forum threads). A confirmed (in the Bitcoin community as well as on Wikipedia now) troll's accusations about a different page are hardly evidence of anything - perhaps you have a conflict of interest to try to eliminate me from the discussion? --Luke-Jr (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@Luke-Jr - The opinion you are imposing on everyone is strictly your own and extremely biased. The summary above does not contain ad hominems, but rather is only a list of your actions and efforts you made toward discrediting the Litecoin and other projects. It perhaps only speculates in one point as to why you are doing this and what your reasons may be. The creator of Litecoin - Charles Lee is an MIT graduate who works at Google and was invited as one of the speakers to the Bitcoin conference 2013. What you are doing is taking the project he and group of people around him made calling them scammers and intentionally discrediting them. For all I care, it could be identical to Bitcoin, you still have no right of attacking and discrediting the project the way you do. If you don't like that, acquire patents on technology or change Bitcoin's MIT/X11 license. CryptoDefender (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@CryptoDefender: No, it contains actions that are not true, which I did not do. I am on good terms with Charles Lee, and I'm pretty sure he meant well, but it does not change the fact that the project he started is demonstratably a pump and dump scheme as it exists today. Warning people about scams is anyone's right. --Luke-Jr (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
'The "references" here are not relevant, they are relevant. to eliminate me from the discussion, I want you to be less biased against litecoin in your edits and add references to your criticisms (whilst I disagree with some of your litecoin criticisms, I do agree that litecoin needs a criticism section). I only want to prevent you from editing the article itself as a last resort if you continue to put up incorrect and biased information. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@Cliff12345: Asserting relevance does not make it so. My edits are not specifically biased against Litecoin, they are simply presenting the facts. If you think they are biased, edit them to be more neutral (without hiding facts or adding misinformation). --Luke-Jr (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@Luke-Jr: Please identify points in the list that are not true and I will gladly verify and retract them. My intent is not to create ad hominems or damage your reputation, but to identify you actions and hostile intent toward a competing project. CryptoDefender (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"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)

Litecoin is based on Bitcoin technology and thus brings as much innovation to the table as does Bitcoin, except it does it in a slightly different manner which it's developers clearly see as improvements. Bitcoin has been just as pumped and dumped in the early days. There is nothing wrong with someone creating a new "product" (let's call it that) which is based on original product. World of full of examples and that is why patent law exists. CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Copying someone else's work is not your own innovation; Litecoin cannot claim Bitcoin's innovation as its own. Bitcoin is still in the early days, and yes, there are people trying to pump & dump it - but Bitcoin does have real innovation and real viability as a currency, so its value is not 100% 'pump' as it is with Litecoin. Additionally, the Bitcoin community includes many cryptocurrency experts who are constantly correcting such misrepresentations ('pumping'), whereas the Litecoin community as a whole, except for some very rare exceptions, promotes its misrepresentations in order to try to inflate its value. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 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)

You therefore confirm that you do declare it pump and dump because of your personal opinion. Many other people have different opinion. I disagree with you. CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not an opinion, it is objectively true. Truth is not opinion. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Objectively true? Please provide justification and references for your statements & arguments. CryptoDefender (talk) 00:49, 30 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)

I agree, changing the wording on RFC page does not suppress anything. However, I will not retract this point because stating that "there is no reason to create alternate cryptocurrencies" discourages developers who want to create one. CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you would have a point if I actually said that. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 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)

You are hereby declaring that opinion of other people are wrong and that your opinion is correct. I am starting to understand why people are saying that you have a god complex. CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to my own intentions, yes, I am the only authority over what they are. Claiming you, or these other people, know my intentions better than I do is just ridiculous. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 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)

Same as previous point. People have discussions that are result of your actions. CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Trolls are best ignored. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 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)

I do not have enough information on the cryptocurrency that you destroyed instead of helping developers fix their problems. Destruction denotes attack. I removed mention of Eglius, but do not retract this point. Again, it is not for you to proclaim any cryptocurrency as "scam". CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Scams are scams, whether I 'proclaim' them or not. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 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)

What you consider is irrelevant, what you do is. You are attacking a network that has only generated 20% of it's currency (thus there is much more to be had), the network which gains acceptance by new businesses every day. All arguments you are making could have been made just as easily for Bitcoin 2 years ago. CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No, not a single one of the arguments against Litecoin applies to Bitcoin. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 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)

Can you please let me know what was the name of the first altcoin that you have created? No one is claiming your legitimacy in the development world or disputes your code contributions to the Bitcoin, Litecoin and other derivatives/forks. The only goal of this discussion is to identify you as a malicious actor who has repeatedly attacked and continues to attack Litecoin project and hard work that other people are putting into it in effort to make it a viable cryptocurrency. You are not doing anything here other then damaging your own reputation. I am very sorry that this talk page turned into a set of arguments about your actions, but it is time someone has stood up to you. CryptoDefender (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The first altcoin, created by me, is "tonal bitcoin". You say "The only goal of this discussion is to identify you as a malicious actor ..." - thanks for admitting your true intentions. This is basically a confession that your only concern is eliminating people who would dare stand up for the truth by slandering them. I consider this discussion resolved with you identified as someone with dishonourable intentions - or if you prefer, a 'malicious actor'. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
My true intentions are to identify you as malicious actor - and I hold 100% behind that. You on the other hand have created self proclaimed truth without any references, any justification, which is clearly your personal opinion and vendetta against an alternative Open Source project. Now you are also now attempting to twist my intentions. This only furthermore shows your intent. Keep your truth and beliefs to yourself. Wikipedia is a neutral zone where people are allowed to list only facts and these facts have to be backed up by references. I have listed only facts about Litecoin and yourself and backed them by references. What facts have you listed to justify your so called truth? CryptoDefender (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I am amazed how you have just reverted changes made by Cliff12345 and described me as a malicious actor right after I used this term to describe you. Please provide references for your claims! Until you do so, you do not comply with rules of Wikipedia! What you are doing here is vandalism for reasons described in this talk page! CryptoDefender (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I also do not appreciate you trying to attack my credibility as my only goal in getting involved here was to make sure that content was fair and to depict you as a non-credible source due to multiple false statements that you previously made and continue to make about the Litecoin project. CryptoDefender (talk) 23:10, 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)

People keep adding misinformation[edit]

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)

I will simply note that yet again, this obsessive edit warring guy is attempting to inject misinformation. This is approaching the level of misbehavior where the arbcom should step in. Muldrake (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Luke - how can it be objectively false when the very cold, unemotional, mathematical coding of Litecoin DOES ensure transactions confirm faster? (Roughly very 2.5 minutes for LTC as opposed to roughly every 10 minutes for BTC) (CryptoAddicto (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
It is objectively false to claim that Litecoin transactions confirm faster than Bitcoin transactions, I don't see the confusion here, a Litecoin block is produced about every 2.5 mins, at each block a confirmation occurs, hence a Litecoin confirmation occurs every 2.5 minutes on average. A Bitcoin block is produced about every 10 mins, at each block a confirmation occurs, hence a Bitcoin confirmation occurs every 10 minutes on average. 2.5<10, hence a Litecoin transaction confirm occurs faster than a Bitcoin one. You can open up both a Bitcoin and Litecoin client and check this if you don't believe me.
its mining algorithm is easier for normal computers, this is not being claimed, the claim is that the scrypt algorithm reduces the advantage that a specialised computer (such as an ASIC) has over a normal one. For exmaple, (I know these numbers are not accurate, they're just to demonstrate a general point), a normal computer mining Bitcoin may be able to produce 1 Mhash/s, a specialised one may be able to produce 1000000 Mhash/s, the specialised computer is a million times faster than the normal computer, hence the person using the normal computer might as well not bother. A normal computer mining Litecoin may be able to produce 1 Khash/s, a specialised one may be able to produce 2 Khash/s, although the normal computer produces fewer Litecoin hashes than Bitcoin ones per second, the specialised computer is only twice as fast, so it's possible for the normal computer user to compete and make a reasonable profit.
Merely using a different algorithm is also not, in itself, a feature see, parts 1. a prominent or conspicuous part or characteristic and 2. something offered as a special attraction. Both of these seem to class the scrypt algorithm as a feature, also even if the algorithm itself isn't considered a feature, the fact that it reduces the advantage that specialised computers have over normal ones (as mentioned earlier) is. Cliff12345 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
A transaction is confirmed when it is accepted as trustworthy and/or irreversible. Bitcoin transactions, by standard practice, take 6 blocks to be confirmed. The same amount of security on Litecoin (ignoring differences in network difficulty, which work against Litecoin) requires 24 blocks. Either way, the average time to confirm a transaction is an hour. Therefore, it is false to claim that transactions confirm faster.
While you are correct that the scrypt algorithm in theory reduces the advantage that a specialised circuit has over a normal one, this is not true of Litecoin's variant. On the contrary, the advantage in this case is far more in favour of the specialized circuit than it is with Bitcoin's SHA256d algorithm. That is, even with mere memoryless FPGAs, it would only take about 10 to take over the entire Litecoin network today. ASICs would be even more extreme.
Litecoin's scrypt variant has not been demonstrated to offer any practical benefit compared to other proof-of-work algorithms at all, so I must disagree that it can be considered a feature. While perhaps a more broad definition of "feature" does apply, in the context the word is being used in the article, it clearly does not. --Luke-Jr (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The same amount of security, a confirmation is simply how long it takes for a block to occur, and is not directly related to the security level. Your claim that 24 blocks is needed for the same level of security may or may not be correct, but that's not what a confirmation is. If a cryptocurrency had a block once a second, and transactions in the client were shown as confirmed once per second, then in that currency a confirmation would be very fast, it just wouldn't be secure.
the advantage in this case is far more in favour of the specialized circuit
even with mere memoryless FPGAs, it would only take about 10 to take over the entire Litecoin network today
do you have any reliable sources to back up these claims?
not been demonstrated to offer any practical benefit...I must disagree that it can be considered a feature, regardless of whether or not it's a good thing, it's still a feature. Again as per, the scrypt algorithm is a prominent part of litecoin, regardless of whether or not it's good, and it is offered by the developers as a special attraction, hence it's a feature. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Now you're playing word games by trying to redefine what confirmation is. Let's pretend we use your definition for a moment: now "confirmations" are simply a synonym for "block", and the term is meaningless, as it does not express security (as the usual definition does); in that case, there is no need to mention it, as it is redundant with the first part of the sentence. Clearly the only reason for extending that first sentence to talk about transaction confirmation time is to use the common definition that is related to security - passing it off as a feature of value, which it is not.
Not at this time, though it will be demonstrated soon - probably in a few weeks. Do you have a reliable source for your claim of the contrary (the generic scrypt is not a source for Litecoin's weakened variant)?
Again, the general definition of "feature" is not applicable in the context it is being used in. --Luke-Jr (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Instead of taking the time to add references with reliable sources to support your statements you choose to engage in bloviation. We can't take you word for it. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:54, 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? (Last entry)

CryptoDefender (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I've put the comment back now, if your comments are removed (or you see someone else's comments removed) again, then I suggest you contact an admin/appropriate section on Wikipedia. Cliff12345 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My mistake, must have been something in the edit conflict. However, your true intentions to just eliminate me regardless of whatever immoral tactics you have to use are also reflected here as well. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This kind of bizarre comment indicates a dispute that should be handled by the Arbitration Committee. Muldrake (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RETRACTING COMPLAINT due to Luke's excuse of accidental editing. CryptoDefender (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to manipulate Wikipedia Article by providing false references[edit]

As seen in this edit:

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).


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

Creation cost of FPGA/ASIC implimentations for scrypt[edit]

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.


  1. ^ Coventry, Alex. "Nooshare" (PDF). MIT. Retrieved 21 October 2012. 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)

I'm not quite sure what the issue is--it's under the category, "Differences from Bitcoin." That is a difference, is it not? There is material to show that it's more expensive, though I'm not sure if the referenced article proves it or not. If the reference doesn't say anything specific, I can find the link to the information released by a developer regarding the costs. There's a reason why FPGA development was halted and developers moved to creating ASICs. (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, it is presented as an advantage of Litecoin? It's a great advantage for Bitcoin that ASIC is so cost-effective and power-efficient! Jikybebna (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's great for Bitcoin that ASICs have put the network completely out of the reach of the people and into the hands of a few. It's also great that three pools control nearly all of the hashrate (and one of them is closing in on 50%). It's super that Bitcoin has become centralized. Wait, that sounds familiar. (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Stating that Litecoin using scrypt as proof-of-work is contradictory to Scrypt article[edit]

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 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved. (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) repeatedly removing section which has a legitimate reference[edit]

I'm not going to start a revert war; someone needs to straighten this chap out. (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Specifically, and (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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

New template suggestion: Infobox cryptocurrency[edit]

@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)

@Jtbobwaysf: Sure. I've got a draft in the testcases. We're still working out some issues though. It would be easier if the infobox was in one place first. Your input is welcome if you are interested. I added it to Bitcoin first because that's where it would face the most scrutiny. — Kjerish (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I get it, the template is sort of in Beta right now. OK, let's give it a month or so Bitcoin and see how it goes there and then look at adding it to the other crypto articles. Great work by the way! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)