Bitcoin and Litecoin are very similar, however they differ in the hash algorithm, the block interval and reward schedule. How do these characteristics impact the scalability in terms of e.g. transaction capacity, IBD, CONOP, light weight node requirements, and block verification times?

  • I don't understand. Litecoin doesn't use scrypt anywhere in the verification of individual transactions, as far as I can tell. Litecoin doesn't even appear to have a transaction script opcode to perform scrypt. Is it possible this comes from someone conflating "verifying transactions" with "hashing blocks"? – Nate Eldredge Jun 8 '17 at 17:59
  • Where did you hear this, and can you give a reference? – Nate Eldredge Jun 8 '17 at 18:06
  • @NateEldredge: Ah sorry, I made a mistake. It mus be blocks not transactions. I had a beer with some core developers and was going from memory, don't have a written source. – Murch Jun 8 '17 at 18:30
  • It's certainly true that scrypt is a few orders of magnitude more expensive than SHA-256 per hash. For instance you can compare the hash rates of your favorite CPU or GPU for the two algorithms. However, the difficulty for Litecoin is more than proportionally lower, and in fact I suspect mining one Litecoin block is much easier, computationally speaking, than mining one Bitcoin block. – Nate Eldredge Jun 8 '17 at 22:00
  • 1
    So, given that you have to compute one scrypt hash to determine whether a Litecoin block shows appropriate proof of work, this costs more than the corresponding computation for Bitcoin. But as a verifying node, you only have to do it once per block, and I would think this is far overshadowed by the cost of verifying all the transactions in the block. – Nate Eldredge Jun 8 '17 at 22:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.