<p>Litecoin is exactly like Bitcoin, but:</p>

<ul>
<li>The hashing algorithm is CPU-friendly, meaning that having powerful GPU doesn't let you mine fast.</li>
<li>The difficulty of the blocks is set so they would be mined about every 2,5 minutes, instead of 10.</li>
</ul>

<p>Other differences are cosmetic, like aiming to generate more Litecoins than there will be Bitcoins, using different port, etc.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-24T18:32:07.673Z
As far as I understand litecoin is less about denying GPU mining over CPU, but making stuff like ASICs not really viable. A by product of that is that GPUs don't have much advantage over CPUs.
placeybordeaux
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-06T23:47:24.503Z
More like making ASICs more expensive.  There's no way to make them not viable and still have an algorithm runnable on standard PCs.
eMansipater
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T11:46:15.277Z
What is the advantage of the "faster" blocks? Is the generally accepted confirmation interval now 24 blocks (or still only six)?
Thilo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T11:54:51.310Z
Faster blocks mainly generate faster, but one should be careful, since it is easier to manipulate them to harm the users. As for how many confirmations is accepted, it all depends on the client implementation and the users, not necessary the algorithm itself. Interesting question though.
ThePiachu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T12:29:27.627Z
One advantage is that if you only care about 1 confirmation, you have to wait an average of 2.5 minutes, instead of 10. You'll get less security in these 2.5 minutes, but more security than if you don't wait to any confirmations.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T12:36:56.423Z
If you just care for faster blocks, you should check out answer to this question: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1557/speed-of-operations-in-the-bitcoin-network . Apparently Geist Gelt tries to keep their block generation at about 1 block per 15 seconds.
ThePiachu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T13:00:38.950Z
ThePiachu Good link with lots of interesting references. @Thilo You are correct: if you want to have the same level of security you need to wait for 24 blocks. What matters here is time (1 hour) and not the number of blocks. [This question](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1863/why-was-the-target-block-time-chosen-to-be-10-minutes) may also interest you.
nmat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T13:10:00.493Z
@nmat for >0 confirms you no need to wait an equivelent amount of time.  The one (and small IMHO) advantage of faster block is that any confirmations are better than 0 confirmation and the confirmation window is reduced in smaller blocks.  That small advantage doesn't in my opinion outweigh the other costs of faster block time.
DeathAndTaxes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T14:17:03.247Z
@theUnhandledException To minimize probability of successful double-spend by an agent with <50% of the hashrate for an unlimited amount of time, what matters it the number of blocks, not the amount of time.
Meni Rosenfeld
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-30T14:19:34.003Z
Litecoin is no longer CPU only.
B Seven
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-11-03T11:40:07.943Z
2011-11-03T11:40:07.943Z
ThePiachu
<p>What are the differences between the Bitcoin and Litecoin algorithms and protocol? </p>

<litecoin>
What are the differences between Bitcoin and Litecoin?
Thilo
# What are the differences between Bitcoin and Litecoin?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-11-03)

What are the differences between the Bitcoin and Litecoin algorithms and protocol?

**Tags:** litecoin


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2011-11-03. Score: 19 | Accepted answer

Litecoin is exactly like Bitcoin, but:

* The hashing algorithm is CPU-friendly, meaning that having powerful GPU doesn't let you mine fast.
* The difficulty of the blocks is set so they would be mined about every 2,5 minutes, instead of 10.

Other differences are cosmetic, like aiming to generate more Litecoins than there will be Bitcoins, using different port, etc.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: What is the advantage of the "faster" blocks? Is the generally accepted confirmation interval now 24 blocks (or still only six)?  
> **username_1**: Faster blocks mainly generate faster, but one should be careful, since it is easier to manipulate them to harm the users. As for how many confirmations is accepted, it all depends on the client implementation and the users, not necessary the algorithm itself. Interesting question though.  
> **username_4**: One advantage is that if you only care about 1 confirmation, you have to wait an average of 2.5 minutes, instead of 10. You'll get less security in these 2.5 minutes, but more security than if you don't wait to any confirmations.  
> **username_1**: If you just care for faster blocks, you should check out answer to this question: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1557/speed-of-operations-in-the-bitcoin-network . Apparently Geist Gelt tries to keep their block generation at about 1 block per 15 seconds.  
> **username_5**: username_1 Good link with lots of interesting references. @username_0 You are correct: if you want to have the same level of security you need to wait for 24 blocks. What matters here is time (1 hour) and not the number of blocks. [This question](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1863/why-was-the-target-block-time-chosen-to-be-10-minutes) may also interest you.  
> **username_6**: @username_5 for >0 confirms you no need to wait an equivelent amount of time.  The one (and small IMHO) advantage of faster block is that any confirmations are better than 0 confirmation and the confirmation window is reduced in smaller blocks.  That small advantage doesn't in my opinion outweigh the other costs of faster block time.  
> **username_7**: @theUnhandledException To minimize probability of successful double-spend by an agent with <50% of the hashrate for an unlimited amount of time, what matters it the number of blocks, not the amount of time.  
> **username_8**: Litecoin is no longer CPU only.  
> **username_2**: As far as I understand litecoin is less about denying GPU mining over CPU, but making stuff like ASICs not really viable. A by product of that is that GPUs don't have much advantage over CPUs.  
> **username_3**: More like making ASICs more expensive.  There's no way to make them not viable and still have an algorithm runnable on standard PCs.  

---

