I don't get why you're asking that, it is more clearly explained in the abstract of the white paper. All of the answers to your questions so far are answered there. If you've already read it, then why are you asking these questions?

Java and other programming languages are built to do just about anything. I touched on this in my last post, but Ethereum is made specifically for creating decentralized applications (and contracts.. Forgot about that in my last post.) It makes it easier and quicker to develop decentralized applications because a lot of the functions you'd have to write in Java from scratch are already written for you.

Stop making new threads, you are not helping me make my point. Please keep the conversation in my thread.

Hm, it is getting boring to me to hear the Litecoin faithful repeat the same mantras over and over, which I have refuted in detail, but none of them seem to be able to come up with a good retort. So, I will summarize here for those that may not have been following the thread. I may repeat some things I've already said, but that's just because no one has come up with a good answer for them yet. There are more half truths that they are spreading, but these seem to be the most common.

Myth #1: Trolls have called Litecoin dead before, but it hasn't happened yet, so that means it is not happening right now.

Logic Re: Myth #1: Most of the "Litecoin is dead" threads they refer to to make this point were from one to two years ago. I do agree that Litecoin was an easy choice back then to be the #2 crypto and was unlikely to die for obvious reasons. I myself defended back then. However, the dynamics of the free market have changed greatly since then. There wasn't really a good alternative to Litecoin or Bitcoin back then. Since then there have been numerous cryptos that have quicker block times, more features, more innovative proof of work protocol or alternatives, just as big of communities, and more developers. In an industry that moves as fast as cryptos are moving, you can't hold onto tired old mantras such as this when the dynamics have changed vastly. Due to rapid technological advancements, and the competition being innovative and forward thinking, companies can become obsolete very fast and I see no reason why this does not hold true with crypto currencies. When it comes to Myth #1, Litecoiners are living in the past. By the way, Smoothie hasn't figured this out yet and I guess there are probably others too, so I will explain it. The title of this thread is poking fun at the other "Litecoin is dead" threads and is a satirical hook. I thought it was a pretty catchy title myself, but maybe that's just me.

Myth #2: The Network Effect... cause just because.... The Network Effect.

Logic Re: Myth #2: I have already covered the network effect extensively in this thread and no one from the Litecoin camp seems to be able to come up with a good retort. The network effect is very powerful, however the network effect is exponentially more powerful for Bitcoin than it is for Litecoin. It is Bitcoin that is in the news all day every day, not Litecoin. Litecoin does get more attention than most other alternative crypto currencies, as they should because they are the guys to beat right now. This could change quickly, and if you read my examples of innovative companies completely killing less innovative companies, you will understand what I mean. I agree Litecoin has it's own network effect, however it is not nearly as strong as Bitcoin's network effect. Search Bitcoin in Google news and tell me how many articles pop up, then do the same for Litecoin, there will be many less articles about Litecoin. Litecoin has a small network effect that is somewhat limited within people engaged in the crypto currency community, however Bitcoin's network effect stretches much wider than that. Since Litecoin's network effect is limited somewhat to people engaged in the community, they are more likely to look at Litecoin for what it is.. Bitcoin with a few changed parameters. When it comes to Myth #2, Litecoiners are in denial.

Myth #3: Innovation does not translate into acceptance or success.

Logic Re: Myth #3: Sure, innovation doesn't equal acceptance or success on its own merits, however it certainly helps. The more innovative coins that have been released in the past year are sitting on top end of the crypto market cap list, and the cryptos that didn't are sitting at the bottom. According to Litecoiners this is purely coincidence... Furthermore, acceptance and therefore success will come for the most innovative cryptos as it is easier to determine who the leader of the pack is. Right now it is a hard decision as to what cryptocoin 2.0 protocol has the best chance for success, so payment processors and exchanges are hesitant to add them to their services (although the most forward thinking ones have already done so.) Over time this will work itself out. In the Field Of Dreams the saying goes, "if you build it they will come". I like this line of thinking when it comes to cryptos. Although they might not be widely adopted right when they come out, I believe that eventually (if there is added substance and value on top of Bitcoin/Litecoin) it is only a matter of time before the crypto community comes. (wow.. that totally didn't sound right..   ).

Myth #4: Litecoin is accepted at more merchants than other alternative currencies (as to a reason for it still being a good long term investment).

Logic Re: Myth #4: Sometimes cryptos (Litecoin or Bitcoin) are being used to transfer money and make purchases, however most users are still using them as a speculative vehicle to make money. If you really think that Litecoin is being used everywhere for ecommerce, then I have a bridge to sell you. When I had a physical crypto business I offered two ways to pay, through Paypal and through Coinpayments.net. I would venture to guesstimate that 95% of the orders were made using Paypal. The answer as to why is obvious, since cryptos have been going up in value so much over the past couple years, no one wants to spend their cryptos and would much rather use FIAT. This was only about 6 months ago, and I can guarantee you it has not changed much since then. Furthermore, the popularity of multi-coin payment processors are going to accelerate the adoption of newer innovative cryptos. As merchants demand more payment options for the convenience of their customers to receive more business, payment processors will adopt the most popular and valuable cryptos (which I am speculating will be the most innovative ones).

You're just repeatedly picking at my words Smoothie. There is literally nothing I can say to you that you won't have some sort of trollish or mean spirited response for, so I am over it.

You're going back on ignore, I will continue this conversation with the more level headed Litecoin community members such as Coblee and TheMage.

No problem, I understand I have been pretty long winded and there is a lot of go over and respond to. I'm not expecting a response from you or Coblee tonight for that reason. I am nonetheless interested in what you guys have to say, so I do hope that you guys will respond eventually.

Cheers

I'm glad you showed up Coblee, you are much more level headed than Smoothie can ever wish to be. Honestly, most of this thread has been Smoothie and I insulting each other. To learn more about my thought process on Litecoin, I direct you to the OP which you seem to have already read and the following posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.msg7476982#msg7476982
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.msg7477592#msg7477592
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.msg7498464#msg7498464

Thanks for explaining your side of the story, and I have no reason to believe that is not true as you have always been straightforward with everyone. However, that was only a small factor in my reasoning. I would love to hear what you have to say about some of the issues I brought up in the OP and in the above posts. Smoothie is just ignoring those posts and insulting me, and I have a feeling that you can take constructive criticism like a man, which is basically what this thread is meant to be.

Again, you are living in the past. Litecoin only very recently started dying in my opinion, I even gave it a 1 to 2 year lifespan. Things change, people change, cryptos change.

Litecoin is so boring now, and you are in denial.

Actually, I have. I told you to use the word irrelevant instead of dying. You are just picking at my words.

Smoothie, you don't know the truth because I haven't told you. I know how you are trying to ruin me, so I'd rather not give you more ammunition.

You are just mad that I have a point in my arguments against Litecoin.  

See, I can use smileys too in a trollish nature.

Well Smoothie, it is clear to me (and everyone else) that you have nothing intelligible to contribute to this discussion.

You are living in the past, Litecoin hasn't been doing so hot the past 6 months. 0.03 -> 0.016

A lot has happened in a year.

Smoothie, you do not know the full story, as you do not know me and you are not my friend. Enough of my private matters are already made public on these forums, and I do not wish to go into detail any further about this. All it will do is give you another avenue of insulting me. I have been honest enough with you and the community here, and I doubt many people will be as honest as I have been about my personal life. If I had money to back up my opinion, then I certainly would... I'm not scared.

You yourself just said you bought Litecoin at $0.005 each... I mean, who do you think you are kidding? You are obviously sitting on a fat wallet and have much more to lose than the common folk. It is not surprising to me you adamantly defend Litecoin. However, the problem is the way in which you do so is more based on insulting the people whose opinion is different than yours instead of trying to point out how they are wrong. It is childish and doesn't prove a point. I have been very thorough and detailed about my arguments in this thread. All you can appear to come up with is insults. Although people are keeping their mouth shut because they don't want to get in the middle of this, I am certain that people can see you for who you really are, and realize you have an agenda versus me. I am hear to speak about my honest opinion about Litecoin, and you are here to insult me.

So again Smoothie for the 100th time, if you want to talk about Litecoin and why it's not dying, then lets do it. Insulting me does not prove your point.

Keep skating around the issue at hand. The more you do, the more people will realize that I am right and you are wrong.

Did you even read the white paper?

The ironic thing about that is the fact that they will never completely shut down the TOR black market, similarly to how governments of the world will never win the war on drugs.

As soon as one gets shut down, another will pop up in its place. Silkroad 2.0 was up and running about a month or two after Silk Road went down, and other alternatives already existed before that. There are now decentralized versions being developed, and numerous Silk Road-like market places have popped up also. Recent articles I've read say that Silk Road 2.0 is doing more business right now than Silk Road ever did.

As to the OP, I have two words for you.. well actually it's a name: Edward Snowden

http://youtu.be/yVwAodrjZMY

This post is illogical, seeing as though my choices for cryptocoins have been spot on so far. As I have said, I made some poor life and business decisions, but my decisions as to what cryptos are going to go up or down in value is not one of those. As you say, only time will tell, however if you actually read my arguments then you will see I have a point. If you don't think I have a point, then tell me how I am wrong. The fact that you aren't doing this already makes me realize that you do understand I have a point. Your childish ranting is no better than the illogical trolls you speak of.

Now you are reverting to the same bullshit you were last night and I'm not going to do this again with you. If you want to talk about the topic at hand, then let's do it. Otherwise, you are one of those illogical trolls that you are talking about, and I'm not going to acknowledge you. See your buddy TheMage, he sets a good example and you should follow his lead, because you look like an idiot right now.

Litecoiners keep bringing this up, but it doesn't make sense to me. The dynamics have changed vastly since then Smoothie, it may not play out the same way this go-around. It is certainly not as clear cut as it was 2 years ago with so many choices in alternative currencies.

Thank you for your genuine, level headed, and thorough response. It is posts such as this that I was hoping to receive instead of just getting flamed. You are setting a good example for fellow Litecoiners, and I appreciate the respectful tone in which your post was made.


I agree that security is very important, if everyone can't trust Litecoin then no one will use it. I did not mean to make it sound like I didn't think that is important, and I think perhaps I didn't word my statement properly to convey what I was trying to say. I feel that by focusing most of the development effort on improving security, that it makes it hard for the average crypto currency user to tell that Litecoin is actually being developed and improved upon. Unless they really keep up with the development updates on the Litecoin forums, they are never really going to notice or see these changes. If you open up the Litecoin client, apart from coin control, it looks about the same as it did 2 years ago featurewise. When people that are already involved in the crypto community and are looking to invest in something new, which is where I feel Litecoin has the biggest possibility to gain more users (that's how I found Litecoin,) they are going to see something that looks almost exactly similar to Bitcoin. That might not be so interesting to them as some of the newer innovative coins, and they may be less likely to invest or support Litecoin because of it.

I know that my personal opinion is that Litecoin is quite boring compared to all these new exciting projects. I feel like some of the newer projects have one-upped Bitcoin/Litecoin by adding different services and features that Bitcoin/Litecoin don't have, which makes them distinguishably different from Bitcoin. I feel like this adds perceived value or speculative value to the crypto currency, more so than a ton of security updates. If a Bitcoin clone came out today that was 100% focused on security, I would venture to say that it may not go over so well. However, if they added neat features then it adds to the perceived value, and people are more likely to invest or support the currency. Litecoin needs to alter their mixture of development efforts in my opinion to reflect this.

I also don't like the perception that people are prone to arriving at, that simply because a crypto currency is new and has new/different features than Bitcoin/Litecoin, that means it is filled with security issues. Sure, I'm certain there are some issues, but at the same time there are certainly still some vulnerabilities Bitcoin/Litecoin that will be brought to light sooner or later. Any program with as many lines of code as a crypto currency has, is likely vulnerable to security issues no matter how big the budget is and how talented the developers are. These security issues may or may not be known yet, and it may take a while for them to be uncovered, but I feel this is happening all the time. The most recent episode of the heart bleed SSL vulnerability comes to mind. As long as the developers of these new currencies are smart, careful, talented, security minded, and had a thorough security audit of their code done by a 3rd party, I don't really see the issue.

I believe it is unfair to say because something is new that it is full of security issues. It goes a long way in that most of these newer innovative currencies have not had huge security issues that would completely destroy the value of the currency. Sure, there have been some issues here and there, but nothing that would be a crippling blow in my opinion and nothing that other currencies (even Bitcoin/Litecoin) do not face themselves. I agree it is risky to jump into a new alternative currency that may have security issues, but the old saying goes "no risk no reward." Those that take the risk by adopting these currencies early might end up coming out very well (example: Nxt IPO coins).


I see what you are saying in terms of different types of investors, however I think you are over-generalizing the different types of crypto investors. I would say there are at least four types of investors:

1. Long term risk adverse investors (Bitcoin/Litecoin)
2. Long term risk prone investors (DCorps/Cryptocoin 2.0s/Etc.)
3. Short term investors (pump and dumpers, but don't forget day traders as well)
4. Savvy investors whom spread the risk around inbetween Bitcoin/Litecoin and DCorps/Cryptocoin 2.0s/Etc.

This is a matter of opinion, but I feel that you have the bolded statement backwards. I currently look at Bitcoin/Litecoin as a short term investment, and the newer currencies as a long term investment. Many Bitcoiners will admit that some of these newer currencies have more bells and whistles than Bitcoin, and the only thing keeping Bitcoin on top is the network effect and perhaps the venture capital that is flowing in (which is not really the case for Litecoin when it comes to VCs.) I feel like as the public finds out about crypto currencies and educates themselves about them, the network effect will slowly lose its stranglehold on the industry, and users will look for currencies that have improved upon Bitcoin greatly. Bitcoin itself is not invulnerable to being dethroned, and I feel like Litecoin is in the same boat. If Bitcoin doesn't continue to improve itself and adapt, it may very well find itself as the #2 crypto someday. Luckily they have one thing going for them that Litecoin doesn't, in that there are several Bitcoin 2.0 protocols being built on top of Bitcoin, which could support its value in this case.

There are many other coins with strong communities, I don't really see this as an argument for Litecoin. I would venture to say that some of the newer communities are stronger in terms of the amount of developers involved. For example, it is rumored that Ethereum literally attracted something like 500 developers almost over night, and there are a ton of projects in the works. I think a community full of developers (like Bitcoin) is more important than a community of marketers and promoters. I can't believe I'm quoting this, but in the Field Of Dreams the saying goes, "if you build it they will come". I like this line of thinking when it comes to cryptos. Although they might not be widely adopted right when they come out, I think eventually if there is added substance and value on top of Bitcoin/Litecoin, that it is only a matter of time before the crypto community comes. (wow.. that totally didn't sound right..  )

I also feel like whether an alternative coin is directly helping with Bitcoin development or not, everyone is helping with Bitcoin development by default (assuming their projects are open source.) I look at alternative crypto currencies as a playground for developers to try out new things and ideas, and if something is truly innovative, then Bitcoin now has a road map as to how to integrate this into Bitcoin by looking over the code. The same could be said about Litecoin, but the problem with that is the development team is extremely small when compared to Bitcoin's development team. Furthermore, Litecoin's development team's budget is quite small in comparison to Bitcoin, and they would likely need a bigger team to make some of these changes. This is one thing that annoyed me about Litecoin is that there are some people sitting on huge piles of coins (no different from Bitcoin or any other coin for that matter), that are not contributing to the development fund or involved with the community. I know you are not one of those people, so don't take that the wrong way.


Definitely, I think every crypto is vulnerable to becoming irrelevant. This is the wild west, things are developing very quickly, and anything can certainly happen in the future. One month in the crypto world is like 1 year in most industries. I am shocked at how quickly things are coming along, it is frankly very hard to keep track of everything although I do my best.


1. As of now there are also 100s of different block chains as a "back up". This might of been more correct 2 years ago, but now there are many back ups that arent simply copy and paste coins. So, I don't see this as an argument for specifically Litecoin.. it is more of an argument for alternative crypto currencies in general.
2. I'd like to make the same point here as I did in #1, as there are a lot of currencies that didn't copy and paste available or in development today. Again, I feel like this statement might of been more correct 1 to 2 years ago (and still applies today to the pump and dumpers) when it was mostly copy and paste coins being released. Today it is very different. There are so many cryptos that did not copy and paste, that I will probably never use or learn about them all. It is the sad reality, but I think that is a good problem to have. The alternative currency movement has come a long ways in the past 1 to 2 years, and people are moving more from pump and dump coins to coins that are actually innovative. Some more than others, but nonetheless I feel it is a step in the right direction.
3. I agree with you.
4. I agree Litecoin had a fair launch, but I no longer consider this a feature. As stated in the OP, this is just common sense. During the flurry of copy and paste coins I think this point was hammered home to developers and now we are seeing much more fair releases of coins. I haven't brought up this argument before, but it is something I've been thinking about.. I would venture to say that some of the newer cryptos being fairly released today will have a much better distribution than Bitcoin/Litecoin due to the fact that the community has grown a lot over the years. There are more people around that are more likely to go mine a new coin than there was 2-3 years ago. I feel like we've yet to see the most fairly released currency, as it will come well after cryptos are more widely adopted for this reason. I will admit that when you look at Litecoin's distribution compared to Bitcoin, you guys look like saints. In Bitcoin, there is far too large of a percentage of available coins in a small percentage of people's pockets.
5. I don't buy the "trusted brand" argument for making Litecoin a good long term investment. As you can tell, I think even Bitcoin is prone to irrelevancy and they are the most trusted out of all the cryptos. You have a point about the volume of Litecoin, and I agree that is definitely a good thing it has going for it. I think this dynamic is likely to change overtime though as the newer most innovative coins separate themselves from the rest, and it is likely that one or two of those coins will also be used for arbitrage (they are already to a smaller extent.) High volume is a good thing for cryptos as it allows people to sell and buy without affecting the price too horribly, so I will concede a point to you here. I just think that it is very possible that could change down the road. I'm pretty sure people are programming bots for just about every crypto by the way, as some of the lesser used cryptos will have the most opportunity due to there being more competition with other bots in Bitcoin/Litecoin. For example, if you picked a lesser known coin with decent volume, it makes sense to me that this could be more profitable due to the lack of competition. This is why I never got into day trading... its hard to compete with bots haha, those things pissed me off when they'd always come in and instantly outbid or underbid me by one Satoshi.  


I think it is a mistake to think that Bitcoin would need new features as much as Litecoin does, because they have a much stronger stranglehold on the industry. They have many more resources when it comes to developers and funding, and are well positioned to improve upon Bitcoin- exponentially more so than Litecoin. I understand that Litecoin really can't do much about this, as Bitcoin is king right now, but it is a sad reality that Litecoin has to face.

If you look in the development subforum and the project development subforum here on bitcointalk, this is already happening in a large scale with Bitcoin. Then go over and compare that to the Litecoin development and project development subforum, and you will see what I am getting at. There is no need for me to push the importance of innovation over here, because there are so many people doing it already, and honestly many of these people are more qualified to do so as I am not a developer. There are many people coming up with new ideas and features that can be built into Bitcoin, and I think the best ones will eventually make it in. Bitcoin is not writing everything off as a gimmick like Litecoin seems to be, they are developing and innovating. There will be some good (true innovation) and some bad (gimmicky innovation) that come with that, but the best ideas will succeed and be implemented.

Yes, Smoothie has pointed this out to me already and I do agree it was a bad choice of words to say what the community as a whole wants, because obviously opinions differ. A better way of saying it would be that by judging by the responses of both the free market (.03 LTC/BTC to .016 LTC/BTC) and community member's opinions shared on these forums, that the crypto community does indeed want innovation. There is no point in reinventing the wheel, but if you can do it better than it was done before, then why not? It doesn't make any sense to me not to want to embrace innovation and brush everything off as a gimmick. How would technology have ever improved to what it is today if everything was brushed aside as a gimmick?


I pretty much agree with you here, and perhaps I was too hard on them for this. There really is no obvious answer to stopping ASICs in most PoW protocols, and there may never be one. However, I don't feel like we as a community simply have to accept this fact. This is why PoS coins really interest me, it is the only solid solution to keeping ASICs off the network thus far. Most of the coins that have been sold as being ASIC resistance are not really ASIC resistant at all. If it makes since in terms of being a profitable venture, then ASICs will be made for these coins sooner or later, as we saw with both Bitcoin and Litecoin. It is very scary to me that decentralized currencies might end up being not so decentralized in a couple years. It is kind of sad that there isn't really a good solution for this in terms of PoW, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look into alternatives. Litecoin and Bitcoin are pretty much stuck with Sha256 and Scrypt, and I don't think it would have necessarily been a good idea to change it, but this doesn't change the fact that Scrypt ASICs are out and the network is becoming less decentralized. I think both Bitcoin and Litecoin are screwed in these regards, and it will be interesting to see if everyone will be OK with the network becoming more centralized. Personally, that is not OK with me.


Well.. my grandmother knows about Bitcoin, but that is just because she has a crypto nut as a grandson! I understand what you are saying here though, the majority certainly haven't. I don't like that you keep referring to all innovations as gimmicks, this is a common misconception in my opinion. I suggest you really look deep into what some of these newer projects are doing and you will find that some of them are more than just gimmicks. I agree brand recognition and security are important, but this goes along with my "if you build it they will come" mantra. I feel like this will work itself out over time for the newer currencies if they are successful and do what they plan to do well.

As more people find out about Bitcoin they are more likely to find out about these other projects. In my opinion.. at first glance they will find some of the newer projects much more interesting or investment worthy. I know that I am not alone in this line of thinking, but I am obviously not trying to speak for everyone. We're just speculating here right? I try to base my opinions and speculation off of facts, but it is necessary to connect the dots to speculate accurately.

Brand recognition and the network effect can be very strong, but it is not nearly as strong for Litecoin as it is Bitcoin. I feel like this is another common misconception. Bitcoin's network effect stretches much wider than Bitcointalk and a few articles on Google News, and you can't really say the same for Litecoin... at least not nearly to the same extent.

Also I'm not buying the Bicoin/Litecoin is accepted at more places argument as a argument for it being a good long term investment. Sure, maybe for a short term investment, as it is true that currently Bitcoin/Litecoin are accepted at more places than any other crypto. However, for reasons I've already outlined I am certain that will change. I will go over them quickly... businesses are in the business of making money. The businesses that give their customers the most options to pay will likely be the most popular. Have you ever walked into a store or gas station that only accepts cash and you don't have any? Wouldn't it be convenient to also be able to use your debit card? Now replace cash and debit card with different cryptocoins and you see where I am going. Consumers will demand more payment options, therefore businesses will demand more payment options from the payment processors, consequently payment processors will adopt more cryptos as time goes on. Right now they are not really jumping at it (well.. except for coinpayments), however I feel like that is because it is hard to tell which currencies they should add and which ones they should not. Over time the newer, innovative, best of the best, cryptos will become more apparent as they slide up the market cap list, and this is when they will be merged into some of the larger payment processors like Bitpay. I think Bitpay is reluctant to add more coins because they are one of the biggest lobbiers for Bitcoin and to add a bunch of coins the common users don't know much about might hurt their image in the Bitcoin community or confuse their customers. Over time as the public gets more educated on cryptos I believe they will have to add more payment options or succumb to irrelevancy. I also feel like this applies to exchanges as well. They are in the business of making money, so the more cryptos they add then the more trading that will take place and the more money they will make because of adding new cryptos. I even think they will eventually allow you to fund your account for different cryptos.. goes along the same train of thought as payment processors. The most forward thinking payment processors and exchanges accept many cryptos (coinpayments.net and btc-e or crypsty just for examples).


Sorry, I know you mean well, but at this time no one can compete with the power of Bitcoin's network effect. It's just not possible.

I think this hasn't happened yet because the exchanges/payment processors can't decide which cryptos to add and which ones not to add. I don't think they want to add something that's could die in a month. So, I think they are taking a very reasonable approach by waiting to see how the market works itself out before jumping on board with other cryptos. As to the major exchanges not accepting or trading some of the newer cryptos.. they have a reputation to uphold as they handle millions of dollars daily. It might prove worrisome to their customers if they were adding coins all the time, as it should be worrisome to them.. if they are adding a lot of coins then they likely aren't vetting them properly. I understand why they have been so slow to accept anything other than Bitcoin.. hell, Litecoin was in the same boat as all the other cryptos until maybe the past year. There were only a handful of exchanges that allowed you to trade it or accept it. In summary, I believe this will work itself out overtime as the newer coins are proven to be secure, and people become more knowledgeable about cryptos.

I don't think the Betamax and VHS example is necessarily applicable to cryptos. In my mind, there is no reason why multiple cryptos can't coexist as long as they provide different features and are useful. Why does one have to dominate and assassinate the other? With multi wallets, multi coin payment processors, exchanges adopting new coins.. there is no reason I can see why there can't be more than one popular crypto.

I guess we agree on this except for the betamax/vhs comparison.

Yes, I was referring to the network hash rate.. I'm not sure why I said network speed.

I agree with you about the distribution of PoS coins sometimes being unfair, but honestly there are some PoS coins that are distributed more evenly than PoW coins. Furthermore, everyone has a chance to buy into the IPOs if they want.. it just depends on how risk adverse you are. I think it is unfair when people criticize coins like Nxt because of the initial distribution, since everyone had a chance to buy into the IPO.. it was posted on the forums for at least a month.

Furthermore, I feel like this same comparison can be made about Bitcoin or Litecoin. Those that weren't around 2-3 years ago might feel the same way about them being unfairly distributed to early adopters, but technically we can all agree that they had a fair release. I don't think it makes much sense to thwart innovation just to give more people time to buy into it, that will only set the crypto community back. I mean.. honestly with all the IPOs today, even if the Nxt IPO was still open today would you be risk prone enough to invest in it? I don't think many people would.. they see IPO and automatically call it a scam, however out of IPOs can come truly innovative ground breaking cyptos. I am really excited about some of the IPOs that are available today, and I don't think it's a good idea to write them all off.

Litecoin being 2 versions behind Bitcoin doesn't necessary mean that it is prone to vulnerabilities, as new vulnerabilities could be found in old code. Someone that knew a vulnerability in said code could attack Bitcoin and Litecoin at the same time- there would be no time for Litecoin to react. I heard a good example the other day of how back up systems are made for the auto pilot system in planes. There is the main system and then a back up system, both of which are designed and developed by two different companies using entirely different code base. This just makes since to me how this would be more robust than two versions of practically the same thing minus some changes here and there. This is why I don't see Litecoin as a good back up plan for Bitcoin- I myself see either Nxt or a CryptoNote coin as a more appropriate candidate (there are others, but this post is already very long and my fingers hurt!)


I meant no offense to you, and I think it is great that you are working hard for a crypto that you believe in. If more people were like that in the crypto world, it would accelerate adoption exponentially. Unfortunately, in general people are lazy (not just in the crypto world) or have real life things that keep them busy.

I know you have good intentions with the Litecoin Association, but I assure you so did the Bitcoin Foundation (and probably still do.) The problem is tying real life identities to the face of crypto currencies is just another attack vector for the haters and naysayers (the anti-Bitcoin/Litecoin people). As we saw with Charlie Shrem's arrest, some headlines mistakenly read "CEO of Bitcoin arrested" or "Important Bitcoin person arrested", that reflect poorly on Bitcoin as a whole. It is sad because it really shouldn't, Charlies actions were those of his own. The same could be said about Mark Karpeles when Mt. Gox when down, as he was also a board member of the Bitcoin Foundation. This is my main grudge with forming foundations to represent and promote cryptos, because if they (or their members) are ever to do something wrong, then it will reflect on the crypto poorly. Maybe not inside the crypto community, but the media will have a field day with these sorts of things like they have in the past.

I suggest decentralizing the Litecoin Association, and using pseudonyms for representation.. like perhaps your forum names. That way if any of you are ever to run into trouble (shit happens), then your name in real life is less likely to be tied to the Litecoin Association or Litecoin.


The thing is that these weren't really innovations.. people had already made cryptos to do these things before. Litecoin just combined them into a pretty package.. the definition of innovation is subjective, but that is not innovation to me. The amount of code that needs to be edited to make those changes is quite small in comparison to the entire code base of Litecoin.

Technically 1 Litecoin confirmation is 1/4 as secure as 1 Bitcoin confirmation, this is what I was alluding to. Six confirmations on the Bitcoin network are not equivalent to six confirmations on the Litecoin network, so Litecoin payments are usually confirmed after more confirmations on websites and services.


I guess we may end up agreeing to disagree, but thanks for the honest and thorough effort you put forth with this post. I love talking and thinking about cryptos, so this has been quite enjoyable to me to put my thought process down on paper.

Cheers

Thanks Smoothie, I did miss that, and by the way I spent something like 30 minutes responding to your post about your "reasoning" and you never replied back. You just resorted to more insulting.

I'll get back with you tomorrow Mage, it seems there's a lot to go over there and it is getting late.

Peace

Smoothie, this is the last thing I'll say to you. I know you always like to have the last word and prove me wrong in the final statements of our arguments, so I will let you have that privilege.

If you ever want to debate the reasons you support Litecoin, then door is always open. It's trolls like you why all these anti Litecoin threads are made to be self moderated. I haven't ever made a self moderated thread once in my life, as I am not ashamed and I know that I have a point here. Unfortunately, you don't want to talk about the subject at hand and can only insult me. That is not my fault, I tried to have an earnest debate with you, and you refused to do so. You look like a clown skating around the topic at hand with as many different ways you can think of to take the conversion off topic.

Cya buddy