why are you dealing with this coin?

you know what will be funny.  when all the alt coins are destroyed and all the miners switch to LTC and skyrocket the diff so there is not profit in mining LTC anymore.  hypothetically speaking.  aI mean after all what is all the hashing power going to do when the alts are gone, just stop mining  go back to playing call of duty?  lol bunch of chimps with gpu farms.

lol that was funny.  what would the difficult by on LTC if it was running a 30Gh network?  How much would LTC need to appreciate by just so miners could break even on it?

or follow a tutorial  

FIFY

stop transactions from being confirmed, spend coins many times more than you have at exchanges.

there is a good reason.  if the network is strong enough and people are committed to DGC then people will invest in it appropriately.  I would recommend putting some of your DGC earnings into DDOS protection.  Well as long as you think the coin is worth it.

funny, crypto currencies aren't even a few years old and the snake is eating its own tail.

are so many people here really bull headed?  not a mature one in the bunch?

where burden is on the OP to post it here. 

what's the point dev just put in a checkpoint and the attack is worthless.  all it will do is slow down the network for as long as they are attacking it.  miners will come back after the attack is over.  not sure how DGC will be "dead"?

man talk about transference of aggression.  BTC and LTC prices collapse, mining profits shrink to meager gains and all that pent up rage is looking for a target.  epens that small?

The burden of prove is on the attacker.  I can fork the coin myself from the source  and run it locally and build up a nice fat wallet to put in a screenshot.  hell I can photoshop it Iran-style.  I don't see the attack, show me the proof.

as feathercoin proved, you can have a 51% attack and still come back.

you might want to update the thread title so people can see it.

I could easily solo 51% PXC and FRK right now but why bother.  The cost to do so would be high, not just in the electrical expense but the opportunity cost as I'm not mining at the time of the attack.  Have you seen the order books on those 2 coins.  There's a few hundred dollars in BTC there.  I'm pulling that a day.  So really the effort is not there. 

But there it is the balance.  Risk vs. reward.  People are risking more but in smaller amounts for coins that have low network hash rates.  as you climb up the alt coin ladder you see the valuations increase with hashrate. 

lol, lot of asterisk comments there fanboy.

Pulled it from the bitcoin wiki.  But I see your point about the exchanges.  It's a catch 22 then, in order to create innovation you need to start with a new coin  but you have people who will 51% attack the coin to suppress it only to protect their bitcoin and litecoin investments or out of greed to get more bitcoins and litecoins.  So older but flawed networks are protected by their size.

I see a few things coming out of this.

protection networks.  developer can rent the services of miners to maintain a certain hash rate on the network to reduce the chance of a 51% attack.
merge mining.  coins banding together to consolidate hashing power to reduce 51% attack risk.
improved trust.  actively developed coins gaining more support and lift their price per coin.

might be some FUD in the OP's threats

You can't just magically create coins out of thin air and you can't change the block chain history.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other generators from getting any generations
The attacker can't:

Reverse other people's transactions
Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
Change the number of coins generated per block
Create coins out of thin air
Send coins that never belonged to him
It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created — any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

I'm all for it.  I support his position but not for his reason.  His actions will weed out the weaker coins and developers.  Hazard coins will be wiped out because the developers are not skilled enough to manage their coins.  The rest will implement merge mining to secure their networks.  DGC and ARG are already implementing this.  So all in all he's making the alt network better.

He probably thinks that the recent LTC weakness is due to the alts and it clueless that its ASIC owners dumping BTC/LTC to get their hardware investment back.