You realize that anything that happens to Bitcoin is going to affect every other cryptocurrency. ...
Historically that isn't true. When Bitcoin experienced the accidental hard fork the entire network was affected, both technically and economically as transactions were in stasis and BTC pricing plunged. None of that happened to Litecoin.
LOL!
Converting to a SCRYPT coin because you're concerned about 51% attacks? Too much roaving hash on scrypt multipools etc for those to be any more secure than BTC...
What is "roaving hash"?
OP, I wouldn't convert all my BTC to LTC. I would however hold some percentage of both. Ask any wealthy person if diversification of assets is favorable or not, and I believe they'll tell you it's generally favorable.
Roaving Hash refers to the multipools that switch from coin to coin, and the general massive amount of scrypt hashing power that's out there and not focused on LTC.. BTC has the majority by far of all SHA256 hashing going on in Crypto, whereas Litecoin can only account for a fraction of the overall hashing going on in the SCRYPT realm.. Scrypt it a very different landscape.
Regarding the BTC fork -- wasn't that after BTC had exploded but before LTC was really noticed? The price of LTC lagged for quite some time after BTC, but eventually had it's own boom when it went up to $30+ USD.. True that LTC isn't directly tied to BTC prices, but generally when the BTC price crashes, alts don't fare well -- I suspect this would especially true for alts that face the exact same vulnerabilities that would be exploited in this case.. It would be easier to attack LTC than BTC, so an attack on BTC would not fare well on LTC...
Can't confirm these numbers, but per
http://liteshack.com/which tracks 100+ scrypt coins:
ltc hashrate is 468,663 MH/s of 1,589,920 total MH/s (29.477%)
- That's a MAJOR liability in my mind.. Bigger than a participatory (i.e. non bad-actor) 51% of the BTC network belonging to one pool.