Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

I can no longer recommend it as a good investment at this point in time.

Are you a financial advisor?

No, but I like to pretend to be one.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

I will give them (well Warren) a bit of credit for improving some security issues on both Litecoin and Bitcoin, but they do not see the glaring issue in that the end users dont actually ever see these improvements.

Since when does innovation = success and only in that case? How about I name drop on you: Toyota, Honda, Kia, etc. They all COPIED Ford yet they haven't changed much about the design of a car in the innovative sense, yet they have been successful.

innovation =/= success
innovation =/= market acceptance
innovation =/= network effect

I'd venture to say there are more companies that have failed, or at the very least not done as well as they could have done, by not embracing innovation and being more forward thinking. In the OP I listed a whole paragraph of them that dwarfs your tiny list of examples in one industry, and I even forgot one of the biggest ones... AOL. I believe my examples were mostly technology companies, as with crypto currencies, things develop quickly and those that don't innovate and adapt are left behind. It is completely different than the automobile industry which technology is not really advancing at such a fast pace. We could sit here naming companies that have innovated and been successful, and companies that have not innovated and still been successful all night. This is again an opinion and it seems yours differs from mine, the difference is you act like your statements are facts when I admit my opinions are just that... opinions.

I guess it also depends on how you measure success. Success to me is staying as the #2 crypto currency or maybe even surpassing Bitcoin. If you deem Litecoin to be successful just as long as it doesn't die (which admittedly is impossible.. scotcoin is still kicking, see last page of coin market cap), then I guess that is again your opinion.

I hate that I have to explain myself again as I've already gone over the following in great detail in his thread. It would be nice if you actually read the thread before posting.

I've gone over market acceptance and the network effect already in this thread if you would have read it before posting. As to market acceptance.. payment processors will add the most popular crypto currencies regardless of whether their name is Bitcoin or Litecoin. The reason for that is merchants will get more business than they would have if they only accepted Bitcoin or Litecoin. I am certain I received a few extra sales for physical Litecoins because of the fact I used coinpayments.net as my payment processor which accepts 30+ alternative crypto currencies. I had a few people pay in coins that are not named Bitcoin and Litecoin, and Im not sure if I would of made those sales if I only accepted Bitcoin and Litecoin. It just makes sense to merchants to give their customers as many options for payment as possible, so that they can do more business than they otherwise would have been able to do by only accepting one or two coins. The most forward thinking payment processors will become the most popular ones, those that only process payments for one or two coins will slowly be phased out as merchants pick the payment processors that give their customers more options to pay. If you get paid with a crypto currency that you don't want to keep, it is stupidly easy to have an exchange like Cryptsy automatically and instantly (or place an order on the top of the sell side and wait a bit) exchange those coins for a coin that you do want. This is all a no brainer to me.. it is not even up for discussion. Other popular coins will become just as widely accepted as Bitcoin and Litecoin over time due to these reasons.

I agree the Litecoin has the network effect going for it, however I think most Litecoiners overestimate the importance of the network effect when it comes to Litecoin. They see how important Bitcoin's network effect has been to its success, and think it will automatically translate over to Litecoin. Bitcoin's network effect is much stronger than Litecoins. Bitcoin is the one in the news all day everyday, not Litecoin. Litecoin's network effect is somewhat limited in scope to those that are already in the crypto currency community, someone is exponentially more likely to find out about Bitcoin before Litecoin, due to its network effect being much stronger. Since Litecoin's network effect is somewhat limited to this community, people are more likely to see through the bullshit arguments for Litecoin and see it for what it is... Bitcoin with a few changed parameters.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

Crypto currency users/investors want new and improved features

Thanks we can all speak for ourselves.

Well, I can certainly tell that you can speak for yourself.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

The free market will speak for itself as well and prove your statement true or not. But it isn't for you to claim it as true.

The free market agrees with me over the past six months, so by your own statement you have proven yourself wrong. The same amount of Litecoins can only buy about half of the Bitcoins they could of bought 6 months ago. The free market is seeing what I am seeing, and only the true hardcore Litecoiners are left living in denial.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

By staying three steps behind Bitcoin in the crypto currency wars, they are positioning themselves to be obsolete if Bitcoin is ever supplanted by a new crypto currency that is much better.

Looks like Litecoin did just well when Bitcoin forked the block chain in March of 2013 due to the fact that it was 1 or 2 releases/versions behind Bitcoin.

Yes, you are right that is one instance of Litecoin being 3 releases behind as being a good thing. Actually... the only instance of that. Congratulations.

What I meant by that statement is that if another crypto currency was to become so popular due to its features and innovations over Bitcoin, that Litecoin is dead in the water. If Litecoin would embrace innovation and be more forward thinking, then they would still have a chance in this scenario because they would have more features than Bitcoin does and less likely to topple.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

I made a hard push to get Litecoiners behind the idea of implementing new decentralized features, such as asset exchanges and decentralized applications, and I was completely ignored by the developers and dismissed by most of the Litecoin faithful.

So you were depending/expecting others to do it? Why don't you take it upon yourself to hire people to do what you want to get implemented then have it released out into the wild so people can choose to adopt or not? That seems like a better approach than yours described above as a "hard push" which equates to posting on a forum. lol

#1 - I am not a developer
#2 - I do not own any Litecoins and haven't for about 6 months or so.
#3 - Since I don't own any Litecoins, I didn't feel it neccessary to put it upon myself to do all the work of forming a team to create new features on top of Litecoin. What would be in it for me since I don't own any Litecoins? Again, although I like to spend my free time supporting causes I am interested in and think are important, making people who own Litecoins rich is not one of those causes. As I've said to you before, I don't see you over on the Feathercoin forums trying to help out Feathercoin. Why is that? Probbly because you don't own any Feathercoins. That is just a random example, but would be applicable for any crypto currency you are not interested in and/or do not own.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

This is how the best development team operates? Completely ignoring their user base and someone that has gone out of his way to support Litecoin time and time again?

You sound very judgmental here. Not everyone can always respond to everyone and just because you didn't get an answer or the answer you wanted isn't reason enough to give up and whine. I've donated to the litecoin development team 1000 LTC and haven't made as much ruckus about them ignoring people as you have. Time and time again? You make like you donated enough funds to get the changes you wanted done done. Yet you should just get it done yourself if you are that passionate about it instead of complaining so-in-so is not doing what I asked or isn't responding to my request for these changes.

I direct you to my last statement, I did not (and still don't) own any Litecoins at the time, and it is not my job to make you guys rich. It is not my fault that you guys can't see where crypto currencies are headed in the next 1 to 2 years. I think you will realize that new and improved (innovative..) features are a good thing for crypto currencies to compete in this very competitive industry.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

This is not the only case where the developers have done as they pleased, many voiced concerns about ASICs coming online and ruining the decentralized nature of the network, making people pay for hardware that will never ROI and sadly has little to no resale value, and suscept the Litecoin mining community to pre-ordering hardware they may never even see (or at least they likely will never see on time before the difficulty skyrockets like what happened with Bitcoin.)

1. No one makes people pay for hardware. They can make their own choice.

2. ASICs can't be stopped. Changing the mining algorithm would mean a hard fork which likely will burn many users who are not paying attention to the update.

3. Complaining that mining is a fool's game sounds like your version of not looking at the risks of mining before investing and now hind-sight is getting the best of you.

1. You are right, no one makes anyone pay for mining hardware, however when all mining hardware available is unprofitable, what is the point of buying it in the first place? Many people that have bought Bitcoin ASICs (and now.. Scrypt ASICs) are starting to realize it's a fools game. Once this sentiment is shared by the community, the network will become more decentralized than ever as old money crypto, corporations, and old money FIAT take over mining. Again, at that point it is not a decentralized currency like what you are advertising it to be.

2. A hard fork is better than mining being monopolized by old money crypto, corporations, and old money FIAT. Crypto currencies are marketed as being a currency by the people for the people, but that will not be the case once they are controlled by a small group of powerful individuals. They can literally do anything they want at that point. I have faith that someone will find a way to block out ASICs from mining, as I think it is a horrible thing for a decentralized currency. If not, then there are always PoW alternatives like PoS. I think PoW is on its death bed as it's so wasteful. I again point to Forbes estimating that in December $15 million in electricity is wasted by securing the Bitcoin block chain every day. If you are 100% for PoW and not alternatives like PoS, then I feel like you must hate planet earth. There are other more sensible choices that don't use a fraction of those energy costs. Furthermore, there are certain use cases like Primecoin which actually do something useful to society with their PoW. Sure, finding prime numbers is not all that exciting, but it helps in the advancement of mathmatics which is a lot more than SHA256/Scrypt can say. There are other interesting use cases like coins that award users for BOINC processing etcetera. If we're going to burn the electricity and you insist on using PoW, then we might as well be doing something useful with it. These are only the first use cases of using PoW to do something useful, I have a feeling that more will come along that will be deemed "more useful" than its predecessors. Primecoin was important in that it showed that the PoW can be so much more than just a waste of energy and securing the block chain.

3. Complaining that ASIC mining is fool's game is just the sad reality of Bitcoin/Litecoin mining today. Since I'm so bad at picking ASIC horses, how about you go purchase some ASICs and come back to tell me how you do. I would be shocked if you broke even in terms of Bitcoin. There are many people on these forums that know where I am coming from when I say that ASIC mining is a fool's game. The ASIC manufacturers squeeze all of the profit out of mining, leaving their customers lucky to earn back their money and left with worthless mining equipment.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

Litecoin is not a back up to Bitcoin. If a huge flaw is found in Bitcoin and someone attacks it, Litecoin is likely to share that flaw.

And you think newer code bases for other coins which have not been as extensively tested for flaws would be a better choice? lol

I do not think that the newer coins will become more popular than Litecoin because of their security, they will beat Litecoin because they are more forward thinking and innovative than Litecoin. The security issues will be solved over time, and people will trust the newer coins more and more as time goes on and no problems are had. Sure, they may not embrace them quickly.. this is why I'm giving Litecoin 1-2 years to stay at #2. Furthermore, over time more and more developers will look at, analyze, and update the code base of these coins, making them just as secure as Litecoin today. To say that just because a crypto currency is new it is not as secure as Litecoin is baloney. If the developers were well educated, smart, and security focused, there is not reason why their crypto currencies couldn't be as secure or even more secure than Litecoin.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

Crypto currencies will certainly take a hit if Bitcoin dies, however it will not be the end of this movement I am certain of that.

For once I agree with you. The genie is out of the bottle.

At least we agree on something.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

Coblee was nowhere to be seen in the Litecoin community. Once the price started to rise he suddenly showed up and started making an effort. I have no problem with that, but I couldnt help but notice the coincidence.

No one is required to be at a certain place at a certain time. Some of us have lives and to make a judgement purely on him is childish.

He was gone for months, and as I said in the OP I am not judging him for that, but it was hard not to notice the coincidence that he showed back up when Litecoin went up to $0.15-$0.30. Ever since Litecoin blew up in price he has been a lot more active as far as posting and development, but for a long time people (me including) were upset with him for the lack of updates and were worried about Litecoin. Litecoin was way further behind on updates at that time, much more so than only 1 or 2 updates. Even if he is busy with real life, he could of recruited help (which it seems that's what he ended up doing.) However, he didn't do that until he saw Litecoin rising in value and realized it could actually be worth something one day. It seemed like it was just a hobby he lost interest in for before then.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

For instance, Coblee seemed genuinely excited and even encouraged me to make my physical Litecoins at the Bitcoin conference in 2013, even stating that he wanted one! He completely ignored me after this, only replying to one of my controversial posts when the ASIC debate was at its peak. I have seen him supporting Smoothie and his ventures, and even the new Coinographic guy, but he never once supported me publicly- only privately in conversation and then ignored forever.

So because in your view Charles didn't "support" your physical coin efforts in the way that you had expected you are going to complain about it? Charles wasn't always available to me when I sought him out. But you don't hear me crying about it as I am aware he is a family man and has much more important responsibilities than "making Coinhoarder feel like he is supported in his physical litecoin endeavor". lol

I have much more respect for Coinographic because so far he has not given me a reason to not like him. He so far has kept his word and looks like he has his sh*t together. There are some things he has yet to deliver on but time will tell on that. He hasn't used me or my coins as a basis to lift the development of his coins up (in words) as you have done in the past.

Yes, this was a factor in my decision to leave. This was not the only case of the developers ignoring me, as you can see in my "community project: let's create a protocol on top of Litecoin" thread. That was the final nail in the coffin when I was completely ignored in that thread and the thread was moved to alternative crypto currency subforum. Maybe its just me, but if I was the creator of Litecoin, I would go above and beyond to support the people that are putting forth a real effort to further the Litecoin brand and name recognition. I can't help but notice him supporting and posting in your and Coinographic's threads and voicing his excitement and support... he really seems genuine. It is odd that I got left out of that group.. if he doesn't have the time, why does he have time for you guys? This goes back to my thinking that there is a click in Litecoin that is hard to get into. I'm not sure who Coinographic is, but I would venture to say they've been around for a while and are part of the "good ole' boys" club like you are. If I am not appreciated for what I am doing, then I am not going to continue to do it. I didn't make ANY money off of making and selling coins.. it all went to my bad decision for a BTC denominated loan. I am still paying for that decision today.

So in summary, yes that was a factor to my decision but it obviously is not the only one. Maybe that is a bit childish and I can see how you could think that, but it is what it is. "I ams who I am" - Popeye

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

Faster block times are no longer a good selling point, as there are other coins with faster block times that dont have a huge problem with stales etcetera. Anywhere in between a minute and two and a half minute block time does not suffer from the things that Litecoin says will happen if they go any faster, at least not to the point where it is a huge problem. Everyone knows by now that Litecoin confirmations are less secure than Bitcoin confirmations.

I personally believe there is a market for faster transaction confirmations. Bigger purchases can stomach longer confirmations like in Bitcoin. But if you are going to pay for coffee who will wait for 10-60 minutes for a bitcoin confirmation? There has to be something to fill that market. Whether it is LTC or not is irrelevant. The faster block times in my view is a good positioning mechanism in the crypto space at least for litecoin it is.

I agree there is a market for faster transaction confirmations, however there are coins that are faster than Litecoin so I don't see Litecoin as being the solution to this. Who is going to want to even wait 2.5 minutes to pay for a cup of coffee?? Answer: no one. The reasoning Litecoin supporters have given for not going with a quicker block time than 2.5 minutes have been proven false by a lot of the copy and paste coins that came out. They claimed that they would be filled with problems like stales and forks, however it has been proven that a block time of one minute to two and a half minutes is not the end of the world like Litecoin supporters had claimed. Since there exists much quicker block speed coins, I don't see this as being a reason for Litecoin to be #2.

Furthermore, many merchants and payment processors process small payments (like a cup of coffee would be) instantly because a confirmation for a $2 purchase is not really necessary. The amount of times you're going to get double spent on are going to be so small compared to the instances where the transaction will happen as advertised across the network.

Quote from: smoothie on June 24, 2014, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 23, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

It is going to take something truly innovative to supplant Bitcoin, and by coincidence Litecoin as well since they are content blindly following Bitcoin.

Last I checked Litecoin was never meant to replace Bitcoin.

Yes, but the newer more innovative and more forward thinking coins may not share that same sentiment. Tongue