Enrich

- Fork LTC and rewrite it in LISP or C
- Add things like "improved stability", "more secure", etc.
- Give it a funny name
- We from /prog/ invest on it firstly
- With all our knowledge on JEWS, we mimic all their abilities to make someone spread
- It gets famous
- It gets more valuable
- We cash out (easily and at once, by a way created earlier)

I might set up a Github if more people is interested in helping.

But what exactly is LTC?

Le Trans Chaim

>>2

Litecoin is a peer-to-peer Internet currency that enables instant payments to anyone in the world. It differs from its parent Bitcoin in that can be efficiently mined with consumer-grade hardware. Litecoin provides faster confirmations (targeted at every 2.5 minutes on average) and uses memory-hard, scrypt-based mining to target the CPUs and GPUs most people already have. The Litecoin network is scheduled to produce four times as many currency units as Bitcoin.

One of the aims of Litecoin was to provide a mining algorithm that could run at the same time, on the same hardware used to mine bitcoins. With the rise of specialized ASICs for Bitcoin, Litecoin continues to satisify these goals. It is unlikely for FPGA or ASIC mining to take over Litecoin until the currency is widely used.

Litecoin uses scrypt in its proof-of-work algorithm which requires pseudorandom access to memory resources that were initially not available for GPU-based mining. Since this kind of memory is relatively expensive to add to FPGA and ASIC processors, Litecoin is unlikely to have such specialized processors developed for it until it is widely used.

Litecoin is a free software project released under the MIT/X11 license which gives you the power to run, modify, and copy the software and to distribute, at your option, modified copies of the software. The software is released in a transparent process that allows for independent verification of binaries and their corresponding source code.

The Litecoin blockchain differs from its Bitcoin counterpart in that it has more frequent blocks which at the beginning will have less transactions per block but will later support more transactions on the network without further modificaiton. While this means merchants get faster confirmations for their online products they still may want to wait for a sufficient number of confirmations for bigger ticket items.

Fresh from the Bitcoin codebase is wallet encryption, which allows you to secure the private keys in your wallet, so that you can view transactions and your account balance, but are required to enter your password before spending your litecoins. This serves as not only a protection to viruses and trojans, but also a sanity check before sending payments.

Miners will initially generate 50 coins per block. In light of our faster blocks and to properly mimic Bitcoin's generation trajectory, the amount of coins generated gets halved every 840,000 blocks. Litecoin is therefore scheduled to produce roughly 4 times as many units as Bitcoin, or about 84 million litecoins.

Then you'd be as bad as the jews.

>>6

B-but... I want the monies!

>>4,5
It's shit since it's not memory-hard enough to prevent GPUs from sucking at it.

I meant to prevent GPUs from being good at it.

>>7
Shalom!

>>8
>>9

Well, that's already one more improvement to be made

1) In LISP or C
2) More memory-hard in order to prevent GPUs' overtake.

Make it aiming to the future: use post-quantum cryptography.

Multivariate cryptography and Lattice-based cryptography seem appropriate options.

Some experts should give their opinion and state the reasons on what should be used, though.

Or another idea for mining: check for the computer architecture mining and give coins to the less used ones.

x86 gets x coins per second
x86_64 gets 2x coins per second
ARM gets 3x coins per second
PowerPC gets 4x coins per second
RISC gets 5x coins per secomd
etc.

Only on the start, obviously. On the long run, mining quantities would be volatile, depending on the market and rumours.

Might be difficult to implement and prone to emulation of architectures. If that can't be overcome, >>12's idea is the best.

>>13
No offense, but you are fucking retarded.

>>10
Shalom aleichem, fellow JEW!

>>14
No offense, but you're a faggot nigger. (Not >>14-retard, by the way.)

>>14

Could you explain why, so I can be less fucking retarded, ``please''?

>>16
Not >>14, but I'll give you a reason (but I didn't really think you were being serious). It's fucking retarded because that has nothing to do with making a currency. Why in Heaven's Holy name would you reward coins based on the CPU architecture used? Why not reward coins differently based on the amount of porn on the hard drive (less coins when there is more porn, because only dorks still keep porn saved after fapping) or the number of posts you've made on /prog/?.

>>17
less coins when there is more porn, because only dorks still keep porn saved after fapping
Cloud computing faggot detected.

>>17

Bitcoin and its forks base the reward in computer power, which also "has nothing to do with making a currency" by your point of view, as far as I can tell.

However, such a method tend always to an oligopoly of those with money for more computationally powerful machines and could even be broken by quantum algorithms, such as Shor's and Grover's.

Having the reward based on architecture uniqueness, would provide a more open and secure cryptocurrency, as well as more speculation on the market on what people are using.
At a philosophical side, it could expand the horizon of computing, by introducing new ideas to people, who should have broken out of Von Neumann's architecture for quite some time.

>>19
It rewards on computing power equally. It doesn't increase the payout just because you managed to get it running on a Super Nintendo

>>20

Rewarding based on architecture uniqueness could still be computed trough a function and done equally.

Anyway, this is causing too much discussion. I'd say just to go with one of the post-quantum algorithms. Its implementation's reasons are clearer to understand, I guess.

Anyway, we need more ideas to take this even further.

Does RMS hold a trademark on "GNU"? If not, we should call it GNUcoin so that people will think that it `freer' than bitcoin and we'll get more coverage on Reddit, Slashdot, and ^_le Hacker News.

>>22
The name will never take hold until a celebrity (such as RMS) endorses it.

>>22

GNU is bloated and inelegant, the only good aspect of it is the licensing philosophy; the programs themselves are disgusting.

Anyway, naming it should be discussed much later, when we already have all of its main concepts listed and set up a repository.

So far, it is:

- Forked from Litecoin
- Written LISP or C
- More memory-hard in order to prevent GPUs' overtake
- Post-quantum cryptography (Multivariate or Lattice-based) for long term use

>>23
Good, because we've got plenty of celebrities to draw on! Nikita is quickly gaining celebrity status by being banned everywhere except here. Mentishit has been the laughing stock of the internet for two fucking decades. Then there is Leah, who I hear likes her fan base here. We've also received an email from the Sussman, and we can probably use selective quoting to make it seem like an endorsement. We've got that `anonymous chat' thread we might be able to blackmail the Omegle guy with.

>>25
kkkkkkkkkk

>Leah, who I hear likes her fan base here.
Fanbase of one person and two people who admit that Adria Richards makes her seem like a goddess in comparison.

Why Litecoin? Why not just fork Bitcoin?

>>21
Architecture uniqueness is still a retarded idea. How are you going to prove this to your peers without it being super easy to forge?

>>29>>14

>>28

Litecoin is an improved Bitcoin, ASIC-proof and with more equality between CPU and GPU (even though not enough).

Easier to fork Litecoin than to fork Bitcoin and reimplement many things Litecoin presented.

>>28
ASIC-proof
They used to say it was GPU-proof.
Go fork github.com/g000001/Uranus.

kids can't into memory-hard functions these days.

>>13
This is good. It'll be able to break the proprietary Intel/AMD monopoly.

>>34
Now all you need to do is figure out an algorithm that'll achieve that. It's not like it's NP-hard or anything.

>>35
Hackers will change the User-Agent of their CPU.

Let's make the GUI have round corners. And it should integrate with our exchange, so you can trade into and out of Bitcoin right in the GUI without having to make a stupid account and getting ``verified''.