The purpose here is to let newbie0872, who just joined yesterday, know that there is a difference between litecoin and lollipopcoin.
Except nothing proposed accomplishes that. LollipopCoin creator can copy/paste search/replace LiteCoin code, and then meet just make sure he/she meets the following:
a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.
Criteria of the above are actually most easily met by quick copy/paste clones and pump/dump schemes, than by new dev efforts with limited resources.
It sounds like this is actually (inadvertently?) going to encourage copy/paste clones and the homogenization of alts:
1) develop source code that devs can copy and use to launch their own coins. the source can include several parameters set by the foundation that will insure a fair launch and longevity of the coin.
It does not solve the flood of crap alts.
It also potentially hinders innovative systems that differ in new fundamental ways.
A seal of approval for a coin does not stop the creation of scam coins.
Its just to point out that some coins meet a standard that are safer, less risky to invest in
I can't see how a voluntary committee with absolutely no enforcement powers whatsoever could stop the next great innovation in alt currency.
We just want to call out the pump and dump scammers, is that too much to ask for?