Thanks for you (well-intended) clarifications 
.
You have not changed my initial opinion (It's a LTC clone with a different name and no added value) but at least you tried and the tone stayed mostly civil. Now everyone reading this can form their own opinion.
. You have not changed my initial opinion (It's a LTC clone with a different name and no added value) but at least you tried and the tone stayed mostly civil. Now everyone reading this can form their own opinion.
Cool. You're still approaching it from a tech-point of view. Which is one way to go, but there's more to it. Not to say that Guldencoin doesn't add new tech and dev to the cryptoworld. Where the core of the coin might not be innovating, the tools it provides over time are
Cool though, hope to see you become a supporter like a lot of other skeptics have over time.
I decided to explain myself a little better. This is not to start a flame war of any kind so fans of this particular altcoin who aren't interested, don't waste your time in reading this.
I think I can make it most clear by responding to this (from the article you linked).
Quote
Nu wordt dat met Bitcoin ook geprobeerd op wereldwijd niveau, maar zijn er voor Bitcoin te weinig munten in omloop om wereldwijde acceptatie daadwerkelijk mogelijk te maken. Het zou kunnen als de waarde verder stijgt, maar oneindige groei bestaat niet.
This claims there aren't enough Bitcoins to go around globally. This is just silly since the allocation of fundamental units (known as Satoshis) to represent a Bitcoin is completely arbitrary and sufficient fundamental units likely exist (and if not the fundamental units will be split).
Then the quote claims the market cap of Bitcoin is insufficient for world wide trade and that the price of Bitcoin can not increase indefinitely (implying it will not increase sufficiently). The answer to that is very simple: if you think Guldencoin fixes this then sufficient value must be allocated to it's market cat. That same value (and the value of all other local coins you predict) could simply be added to Bitcoin to achieve the exact same effect. So either there is sufficient growth to achieve a sufficiently large market cap, or there is not. The existence of local coins do not change this.
Overall, I don't see any value in locally applied crypto currencies. Sending a Bitcoin to someone can be done just as fast to someone in the Netherlands as to someone in Melbourne. In fact, you won't even know where the individual or individuals controlling the private key reside. Therefore there is no added value in creating a crypto specifically for a certain region. In fact, you cannot even control it. Why would someone in Australia NOT use GuldenCoin why someone in the Netherlands would (the name? really?).
Unless you can come up with a true differentiator for requirements of a crypto in a specific region (Swiss people want anonymous features, Americans want identity tagged addresses and the Argentinians want extremely high levels of inflation) one global crypto is going to win the vast majority of all traffic while the second place is there because of some useful (not geographically related) variation on the original concept.
I believe you are looking at it without emotion.
. The name will interest a lot of Dutch people that aren't currently cared about Cryptos and will inspire them to find out more, but I believe Guldencoin will spread to Belgium and other countries in Europe. Just to add , iOS is available for testing, something litecoin hasn't even launched yet. Bitcoin has had a lot of bad publicity with GOX and as a result certain individuals will be ready to keep dumping the price down. Touch wood Guldencoin won't have such problems even though I expect an exchange one day will steal coins.
