Quote from: AnonyMint on August 12, 2014, 05:25:08 AM

Apparently the only thing LTC offered was GPU mining. As that goes with scrypt ASICs, apparently so goes LTC.

So in that respect, I agree Monero and XCN appear most poised to fill that position of weakness. GPU miners might prefer not having to compete with botnets, so XCN might win that position.

Anonymity seems to have nothing to do with it.

This is a crucially important point because my opinion is that if you want to scale CPU-only, you need a better distribution strategy than Monero has.

I know we disagree about the relevance of botnets so I won't belabor that point.

I will also state (and we probably disagree about this too), that miners only matter to the distribution and success of a coin (at least up to the scale of LTC) until the coin achieves good liquidity and tradability. This took a long time for Bitcoin, a shorter time for LTC and an even shorter time for XMR. Once you get to that point, miners become part of the plumbing and no longer matter much to the coin at large. Crypto-to-crypto markets are largely frictionless, and people who want the coin can just buy it while miners who don't want it can just sell it. Specialization and trade make an economy stronger, not weaker.

Also, in a 1000 shitcoin crypto space, miners just end up seeking out the most profitable coins to mine and don't really give a shit what they are mining. There is little buy in and building of enthusiast communities the way there was in the earlier days of crypto. Sometimes this gets automated with switching pools and miners don't even know what they are mining, much less care.

Beyond the scale of replacing LTC, we probably agree more about the role of mining. That's another discussion though.