one small step for future upscaling one Giant Leap towards complete centralisation 

wow a record level of FUD on litecoin.....keep it up, I remember what happen last time litecoin was dead 

non existence would be the best feature for any new alt.

already 1001 alts doing the same damn things, alts made purely to mine etc etc

sorry no error on my part, tis stating the obvious that POW was only a short term solution, anyone who has even only done half assessed research will know that.

in fact it would help my own arguments in this thread against bitcoin core devs to say "look they want bitcoin to move away from pow wow thats so against satoshi's original plans" now wouldn't it? but its the one point i'm defending the core devs on strangely enough.

i'm not going to find and link every satoshi statement to that effect just to defend my research too you. especially when thats defending the devs i'm not a fan of.

ignore away  

i was replying to "Why do you get such an odd idea?" and gave a quote from just one example of a video i'd watched 10 min earlier to back up that even the core devs will backup that pow is not the future direction of bitcoin, and they have no idea what will replace it.

now as for satoshi view it is in all the old crypto newsgroups from before this forum, satoshi was look for a distribution method and went through many until just settling on pow stating on many occasions that that is a shortterm fix, and simple i don't have the time to got through all that too highlight that......so as we say in the daytrading DYOR.


time and time again i make statements from what i heard, read etc from the core team, satoshi, only repeating what i heard and read, and people shoot it down......but i never make this shit up, i just repeat...so i don't need to continually debate it ad nausea......i mean shit people do your own research on what the core team is upto, thinking,doing etc

the lack of research is why these core developers are able to head down such a centralised root for bitcoin.

did you know the core devs don't agree with blockchain voting because they don't want people telling them what to code?

did you know Gavin and its from his own words is increasing the block size even if bitcoin users are against, stating he only has to convince 5 people to do it (thats less people the had to be convinced to go with the banks big bailout. )...and good ol Mikey wants it too be just ONE!

(note i'm not debating whether or not these are the way to go, just that the cores lack of respect for the grass roots users, which makes in centralised).

now the reason why the core gets away with this shit, and the reason why the shit hits the fan after TBF screws up, reason why people lost money on gox....is because i have to continually cite where i got the info......

i shouldn't have to cite because YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW!

its like on the sharemarket often have people asking me about companies they already invested in  

i always reply hell if i invest in a company i even know what the directors dog had for breakfast.

you know two of the reasons i like ltc;

because warren (who've i've trolled, abuse etc on an occasion or 10), has more respect for users then all the smug pseudo banker types in btc core put together.

the LA is a group by the users for the users completely seperate from the devs, while TBA is a group of self interested would be corporate wanker types trying to control the would be banker wanker types of the btc core.

then you wont like 20:59   in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

so yeah not my idea.

i have no idea what they'll move it too, and i think at this point either do they.

"decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin" ....i seriously question peoples definition of decentralised when i read statements like that.

in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.

truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.

looks like nothing about bitcoin, more about would-be entrepreneurs with business surrounding bitcoin all for the fiat 

"f%&k hornets"; gets bug spray- Coblee 

ok then; "I recommend litecoin more because it's faster and cheaper and also better distributed and with smaller blockchain." and not created in the quest for more fiat.........fixed.

 

its not about the code, its about being anon then doing a runner with ~1million coinage

not on this particular point because its a completely fresh ledger.

i've not stated other currencies (including fiat) aren't subject to the same issue, but clearly btc is alot more tainted, and such has been splashed all over the news, rightly or wrongly it doesn't paint a nice picture of bitcoin to the mass market.

well i have been privy to some (irl i run a company that helps other companies list on markets) of the regulation hurdles faced with the upcoming bitcoin etf, the anon dev thing was the biggest hurdle with regulators.

as i've said before for real world mainstream adoption ltc has huge advantages over bitcoin;

one big one being we know the original dev, btc's got an anon dev with 1 million stash, i'm a crypto enthusiast and that don't sit well with me, hows average joe going to accept that as an alternative to the greedy fiat banker  

bitcoins foundation and core dramas crossed the decentralised line a time or 10 already, lets add gox, silkroad dramas, the fact that a savy lawyer could oneday class action against all bitcoin users for holding a great % of stolen bitcoin (possession of stolen goods is illegal in most places).

come on seriously bitcoin is a regulators nightmare,

lets get too useability, come on seriously any you guys actually use bitcoin?

litecoin i use cross exchange trading so much smoother then bitcoin, in practice, in my real world experience. not yet had a mac client for bitcoin work, not had a problem with litecoin (use both windblows and mac).


problem is most people here have such an emotional attachment to having bitcoin work that they excuse the glaringly obvious problems with it.

 






 

fees, not instant transactions unless you go through a middleman, and its an alternative to fiat 

well tbh your diplomacy and not wanting to take on bitcoin headon has helped litecoin succeed relative to previous alts, however litecoin can and should take advantage of its 2nd place to bitcoin.

if litecoin stays a few steps behind bitcoin, it can avoid any trip-ups bitcoin makes and thus have an advantage, admittedly any terminal trip up by bitcoin, at this point in time, would likely spell the end for all existing cryptos.


while i think the idea behind bitcoin was a step in the right direction, i can't see it (or any other current cryptos) succeeding in any meaningful ways as a competitor to fiat.

though soon enough a alternative digital currency will come along that can, the only thing good to come out of the crypto scene todate is the 'idea'.

yes bitcoin will become a flavor of the day trading commodity (well really a pseudo fiat trading token), a few small time wall street players may pump it for a spin in time, so the into making fiat crowd here will have smiles soon enough.

why do we need btc? if we have something better  

and define what you mean by need? i mean most the world gets along fine without cryptocurrencies.

but then he also didn't agree with me when I said there was no imaginary killer hornets chasing us 

never had litecoin transfer blow out that far, but yeah its why i use litecoin over bitcoin in trading.