Quote from: ToxicDartFrog on August 06, 2013, 05:27:00 PM

I'd say the only people really against this right now are ASIC owners. Sucks for them but 'securing the blockchain' is really just fancy speak for trying to hold a monopoly on hashing power and screw the little guy. A BTC fork to scrypt has been discussed for a while now and was even recommended by the guy who made the BTC hashcash algo. There is very good reason to do this unless you WANT the future of BTC to be in the hands of ASICS.

Being in the hands of major GPU farms is somehow "superior". Don't give me the "anyone with a single GPU can mine Scrypt". If Bitcoin used Scrypt the difficulty would be so high that a single miner would make a token amount (as they should given their small hardware investment) much like a USB ASIC miner today makes a token amount.

The parameters for Scrypt used by LTC (et all) are memory weak. They only use 128KB of memory. That is more than possible to acheive with an ASIC at reasonable cost. If BTC used Scrypt there would be Scrypt based ASICS. If LTC grows large enough to warrant the investment and risk there will be Scrypt based ASICs.

Quote

In my opinion one of the major reasons litecoin and the alts have gained so much traction IS the ASIC problem BTC has now.

What traction?
http://coinmarketcap.com/

Bitcoin is 96%+ of the combined "market cap" (as much as I hate that word).
BTC & LTC combined are >99%.
The other 50+ scamCoins are <1% combined.
(BTW I exclude Ripple as well it is PayPal 2.0)

Name a significant vendor that accepts a crypto-currency that doesn't accept BTC.
Name a major exchange which doesn't accept and altCoin but doesn't accept BTC.
Show me a day where there was more altCoin coverage in mainstream media than BTC coverage.

An alliance of a few loudmouth butt hurt GPU miner and pump and dump scammers isn't "traction".