Quote from: CoinHoarder on April 15, 2013, 11:10:48 PM

Sorry to be rude, but I really can't stand the way old school bitcoiners act and talk about Litecoin.

This is what your OP sounds like to me: Litecoiners... protect my big stash of Bitcoins, after securing my nest egg, then in return I will make a lot of money in return by selling physical Litecoins to you guys.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good idea. I am somewhere in the middle of the two extremes:
Litecoiners/Bitcoiners: That's a wonderful idea!
Litecoiners: We don't need Bitcoin, nor are we going to be Bitcoin's subservient guard dog, let the ship sink!

Old school bitcoiners seem to just not get the value and use that LTC can have in the future. You blindly ignore the traits Litecoin has that so many people already see (which is why it's up to 2.30 from .07 months ago.) I'll spare you the time of listing off some of the good traits of Litecoin because I know you know them all already, you are just blinded by your big ole pile of Bitcoins.

IMHO Litecoin is doing just fine without this and it will continue to do just fine without this. Bitcoin needs this more than Litecoin needs this. If you can't see the usefulness in Litecoin at this point in its development, then just get to steppin'... we don't need you.

/rant

let's try to keep egos out of this. i couldnt care less what bitcoiners think of litecoin as long as this is beneficial for both sides...and if you look at the big picture, YES, it COULD be highly beneficial to all involved.

Quote from: MAD_MAD on April 15, 2013, 11:11:19 PM

I don't see why Litecoin is required here.

I mean, I realize it is, essentially, a large backup tape, in this scenario.

But what exactly prevents BTC from, just, you know, keeping the reorged-away blocks for a little while longer and pleading the node operator to investigate "suspect" reorg when it occurs ?
Both solutions provide, essentially, the same functionality - block material is kept around for a while longer, so that human-op can decide which side of a fork he likes the best. But one requires mutual inter-operation between two cryptocurrency nets, while the other does not.

I, so far, fail to see the advantages to the "inter-operation" scenario beyond "let's give litecoin a sense of purpose" and "it would be a shame if GPU miners starve".

nobody is trying to give litecoin a sense of purpose. litecoin already has a purpose. many purposes actually. only those who chose to willfully be blinded are unable to see it.

and the reason why litecoin is "required" is simple: litecoin is still small/early enough to be adopting these kinds of things. It's much easier to make it happen in litecoin than to make it happen in bitcoin.

edit:

Quote from: MAD_MAD on April 15, 2013, 11:29:10 PM

So far, it is basically a rather contrived and complicated block backup mechanism so you could counteract and/or recover from a "bad" reorg.

I am not convinced it would benefit anyone.

How is preventing large malicious reorgs/chains that spring out of thin air and ruin all confidence in bitcoin "not beneficial" ?