Connect with us


Litecoin [LTC] creator, Charlie Lee says Ethereum [ETH] transactions is not immutable




Litecoin [LTC] creator, Charlie Lee says Ethereum [ETH] transactions is not immutable
Source: Unsplash

Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin [LTC] and the Managing Director of Litecoin Foundation spoke about the intrinsic value of Bitcoin and altcoins, during the Blockchain Cruise Conference.

The creator of one of the top cryptocurrencies in the market spoke about Bitcoin [BTC], Litecoin [LTC], and Ethereum [ETH] while he was discussing ‘the intrinsic value of altcoins’. According to him, transactions on Ethereum is not immutable as opposed to Bitcoin and Litecoin.

Charlie stated that even if the cost of reversing a Litecoin transaction is cheaper than that of Bitcoin’s, the cost is still “very expensive”. This is the main reason he has always urged people to use Litecoin for smaller payments and Bitcoin for larger payments because the user will depend on the security and immutability of Bitcoin.

In addition, he spoke about the cost of production of Litecoin. He said:

Cost of production: Litecoin is cheaper to produce, but still a high cost, about $50 to produce a Litecoin today.”

Charlie continued to speak about the fixed money supply of Litecoin. He stated that Litecoin’s money supply is similar to that of Bitcoin which happens every four years. The total supply of Litecoin will be 84 million coins, which is never going to change. The creator said that even if he wanted to change it, he would not be able to as the users would revolt and this is why it will always remain the same.

Furthermore, he spoke about Ethereum and stated that it is “most people’s favorite altcoin”. According to him, Ethereum is censorship resistant and he believes that there is a lot of “security around it”. He said:

“It’s hard to see certain transactions but the problem with Ethereum is, we have already seen it, we have already shown and proven that transactions on Ethereum is not immutable for most cases it is.”

Charlie quotes the DAO hack as an example for his statement. The DAO hack marked the split of Ethereum [ETH] from its original blockchain, now called Ethereum Classic [ETC]. The majority of the community and developers had decided to fork the block in order to stop the hackers from stealing the tokens.

He continued to say that it is actually a good thing as the money is taken away from the thieves but it “actually hurts” the properties of sound money. Charlie said:

“It sets a bad precedent that governments can approach the foundations of developers and convince them that this transaction is bad because it’s sending millions of dollars to a terrorist group. So, no one likes terrorists but for properties of sound money is important that transactions are immutable.”

Moreover, the creator added that once it is just proof of stake for Ethereum. The cost of production would effectively go to zero and this would hurt some projects. He also spoke about the recent block reward for the miners where the community and the developers decided to decrease the reward to 2e from 3e.

Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter

Follow us on Telegram | Twitter | Facebook

Priya is a full-time member of the reporting team at AMBCrypto. She is a finance major with one year of writing experience. She has not held any value in Bitcoin or other currencies.


Bitcoin SV [BSV] gets hit with another reorg as multiple blocks get orphaned, including a 128 MB block

Akash Anand



Bitcoin SV [BSV] gets hit with another reorg as multiple blocks get orphaned, including a 128 MB block
Source: Pixabay

Bitcoin SV [BSV] and its proponents have been making headlines over the past couple of weeks, either due to developments or because of comments made by its major proponents, Craig Wright, the chief scientist at nChain, and Calvin Ayre.

The network was also hit with several members of the cryptocurrency community alleging that the cryptocurrency itself is a sham without any use cases, as evidenced by its delisting on several popular cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance, Kraken and Shapeshift.

The latest news added salt to BSV’s wounds after it was revealed that the network went through another blockchain reorganization on a 128 MB block. This fact was pointed out by Nikita Zhavoronkov, the lead developer of Blockchair, who had tweeted:

“Whoops! $BSV has experienced yet another reorg, this time 6 (six!) consecutive blocks were orphaned (#578640–578645), this chain included a 128 MB block #578644 🤦‍♂️ The network was basically stuck for 1.5 hours, and this shows that even 6 confirmations are not enough.”

Orphaned blocks are valid blocks which are not part of the main chain. There are ways that they can occur naturally when two miners produce blocks at similar times or they can be a result of an attacker with enough hashing power using it for nefarious activities like reversing transactions.

A major reason why this reorg event made news was that a major 128 MB block was stuck in transaction, something that was not supposed to occur according to the initial claims made by the SV camp. Supporters of the cryptocurrency, however, have stated that despite being slower than promised, the transactions on the block settled faster than that on a Bitcoin Core block.

One supporter of BSV, mboyd1, tweeted:

“Orphaned blocks are a feature, not a bug”

To this tweet, Zyo, another cryptocurrency enthusiast replied:

“yes, but orphaning 6 blocks in a row is not good, that means that 6 confirmations is not safe. It’s a bug because the 100+ MB take way too long to propagate and validate. There is a reason why BCH doesn’t have [yet] 100+ MB blocks.”

Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter

Continue Reading