Quote from: chriswilmer on May 02, 2013, 04:17:17 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on May 02, 2013, 04:15:00 AM

Quote from: Frozenlock on May 02, 2013, 04:03:30 AM

Quote from: bitcoiners on May 02, 2013, 03:49:06 AM

Nope sorry. No logic. Neither the wiki nor the poster uses logic. LTC is going to Gox. It's time for BTCers to deal with it. No matter what you say you can't change that LTC is headed to GOX. Defame all you can it's futile and we all see right through it.

Really?

Quote

problem is; its just a copy of btc with holes in it and there is no development behind it to improve upon it.

I wonder, is it susceptible to the same fork we had some weeks ago? Lastest Bitcoin version is patched, but is Litecoin?
The github repo shows no activity in the code for at least 6 months.

Are the contracts implemented in Litecoin?

Are there multisignature transactions?

Is there a block size limit? Will it be removed/modified?

Has anyone looked to add Zerocoin on top of Litecoin?

I see a bunch of dedicated developers for Bitcoin, but I don't really see anything on the Litecoin side, except some people trying to hype it.

IMHO its biggest problem atm: someone arranges 300K half-decent CPUs and the network will be 51%ed, not that difficult for some botnet operators.

If LTC can survive for another 1-2 years, with the network hashrate growing by another 10-fold, I can see it as "here to stay", now it still isn't.

I think in Satoshi's paper, the argument for why you wouldn't expect a 51% attack was that it wouldn't be economical for the attacker. That's still true for Litecoin. You wouldn't make money doing it, you would just cause chaos.

One reasonable scenario is someone with vested interest in Bitcoin trying to ruin the LTC network, let alone the possibility that government/corporations will back such an attack.

What will be the source of a possible attack is not important, the important thing is that investors still can not see the LTC network as a reliable alternative to the BTC network.