I did. You equated trust to some combination of time connected & LTC owned. Both of those can be obtained easily (in the mathematical sense).
51% of trust nodes should roughly equate to control of the network. A lone attacker might have difficulty, but a cartel could easily form. Especially if pool operators and exchanges are involved.

You seem to be assuming that you can determine who you should trust, and that they would never betray or disagree with you and thus make the network secure. Instead, assume that some of those you trust will betray you and then examine what the consequences of that would be. If you don't believe that trusted people might betray you, please examine Bitcoinica and mybitcoin.com for evidence to the contrary.

Could you name the pathological LTC haters? I know Luke doesn't like it, but the only thing Luke does like is Catholic Priests.
I haven't heard anyone else active in BTC development hate on LTC.

If you are not furious, then why do you follow BCX around and respond to every one of his posts with 72pt red font capital letters that say "SCAMMER"? That is textbook internet rage.

You went solo mining? Why doesn't LTC have p2pool? If it does have p2pool support, why didn't you use that? You would have lost nothing.

You read a post that said I was a sock puppet and you cannot change your mind. Anything I post that disagrees with what you wrote you presume that because k9quaint wrote it that it is from BCX. You are not actually capable of internalizing the content of my posts. Psy made that same mistake, and that is why he doesn't like me. I criticized SoiledCoin not long after BCX criticized SoiledCoin. Psy supported SoiledCoin just because BCX disliked it (he claims he only rooted for SoiledCoin to succeed because it would mean BCX failed, I don't really care what his motives were). I pointed out that he was supporting a scam just because he didn't like BCX. His pathological rage against BCX blinded him, just like yours is doing now.

At this point, if BCX said 2+2=4 you two would be out burning math teachers at the stake for scamming people. You would probably come after me too because I would point out that 2 plus 2 did actually equal 4.

P.S. I am here because there is someone wrong somewhere on the internet! /swirls cape

So I buy a bunch of Litecoin, set up a few nodes and hang out for a few months for them to gain trust. Now I have lots of Litecoin and trust. I convert my LTC to BTC and then immediately launch my alternate blockchain before everyone has confirmed my LTC transaction. In some parts of the network I still have LTC, and I am still trusted because of it. When people ask me about the real chain, I tell them to reject it.
Now I have BTC and LTC and the network still trusts me. That seems like a bad combination.

Plus, 51% of trusted nodes could dominate the network with no way for anyone else to either fight back or gain trust.

No. Even if there was, Coblee checkpointed the blockchain as a precaution.

Probably none. BCX turns out to be mostly smoke and mirrors.

Only speculators who dumped LTC at the first sign of trouble.

We don't.

The extent was forum posts. The LTC reaction was to a threat, not an actual attack.

How do you determine "trusted random nodes"?
Specifically, how do you know they are trusted and how do you connect to them?

So, you read what one other person said about me yesterday but did not read what I posted about the "attack" when it was announced. Well done.
I suppose I have no right to expect fair treatment from you. This is the internet after all.

P.S.There was some panic selling by people believing the wrong thing. You cannot predict to what extent people will be stupid, you can only predict that some will be stupid. You say you did not sell your LTC, then why are you mad? When you saw the price drop, you could have bought. For you it does not matter why it dropped, the opportunity was there and you could have taken advantage of it.

I really don't understand your fury.
The LTC price is back to where it was.
LTC demonstrated it can mitigate the threat of a 51% attack.
There is one less person on the internet pretending to be something they are not.
Seems like win win to me.

Super nodes could be chosen randomly, but they have a means of proving themselves as a super node.
Once they are chosen, they are vulnerable to DDoS and hacking to obtain their private keys.

And do you really want a random cross-section of users holding the keys to the block chain?

No surprise you lost money. Perhaps if you had read my posts when the "attack" was first announced, you would have acted differently. I was trying to make the case that there was no reason to get excited. People said I was nuts because I did not believe the sky was falling.

Now you think I am a BCX sockpuppet because some random person on the internet said so. I suppose that is what is to be expected when one disagrees with a herd of speculators.

Not to mention if the trusted nodes were ever hacked or the keys shared with someone who later turned out to be unreliable, the block chain would be at their mercy. They wouldn't need 51%, they could fork the block-chain when ever they felt like it.

I swear, some guy could walk in off the street and claim to attack LTC and you would dump your coins.
Then you would probably donate to his Kickstarter project to found a new cryptocurrency based on red pixels.

Alcoholics are not addicted to alcohol. They are the victims of bartenders!

People are giving BTC to Coinhunter?

This forum has to be the richest farming ground for con-artists in the history of the planet. Never a shortage of people who blindly trust. 

You need to type less giant red text and read more posts.

I'll sum them up for you:
It turns out that BCX is just smoke and mirrors. He is not some uberhacker. He is a marketing dude from an little startup company that owns a few video cards. You can safely ignore him.

Some people (usually those who cannot read or write code) feel safer with a proprietary software license and closed code bases. They presume if the attacker cannot read the code, then the product is impenetrable. Unfortunately, that is a false presumption.

For those of us that can read & write code, we would rather have access to it. Having the permission to modify it is also nice.

To answer your question, yes a license can prevent that sort of mistake by enlisting the entire world to examine and improve the code base.

If you can't read & write code, then someone else is always controlling your computer.

If one person of medicore means could destroy the Litecoin blockchain, you didn't actually have an investment. You were just speculating you would have a chair when the music stopped.

As it turns out, Litecoin is not so vulnerable as you have been claiming. Perhaps if you understood better what you purchased, you would not have panicked.

So you can stop worrying about 51% attacks.

A solution to a 51% attack could be that forks longer than the current accepted chain to be merged into the chain, instead of replacing it. A different treatment for orphaned blocks so to speak. Of course, this results in more of a tree than a chain. That way at least, hashing can only add to the network.

How to accomplish this in practice and maintain the integrity of transactions is not something I have thought through. So, I leave the rest of the puzzle to the reader. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet, so to speak.

I don't know who BCX is, but I know who I am. I am the walrus.

Sweet. Thanks.

From 07-24 15:13:56 onward is a wave of selling that drove LTC down from 0.006 BTC to around 0.004 BTC at 07-25 03:06:06. A drop of roughly a third over the course of 12 hours. It looks from the transaction history that it was a wave of panic selling and not large blocks moving the market.

The price recovered back to 0.006 BTC early morning of 07-27.