Topic: INNOVATION =/= SUCCESS (not always) (Read 1302 times)

There's a difference in between innovation and a gimmick. You guys seem to not be able to tell the difference.

I see some projects already out there and in development that are truly innovative and have a good chance of surviving, much more so than the gimmick pump and dumps.

Being able to tell the difference and analyze all factors of what makes a good crypto currency (apart from being innovative) is key.

but adapted to what? whatever "innovation" (and I use the word lightly) gets its ten seconds of fame in the latest pump n dump crapcoin?

my counter point to the op would be, there isn't any innovation here in the alt section where people are yelling only go coins with innovation 

I think that's pretty funny myself lol.  

I have no idea why we haven't been able to change avatars since forever.

To be clear, I don't hate Litecoin. I hate that Litecoin won't adapt and innovate when market sentiment is shifting. If I was going to invest in something, I would want the developers and community to take user's feedback seriously instead of brushing it off as trolling or FUD, and considering all innovation a gimmick. All valid criticism should be at the very least acknowledged. The only thing the Litecoin developers have acknowledged was their stance on ASIC mining, which I feel they had a pretty decent point as to their decision. It is too late to fix Litecoin's PoW just as it is too late to do so in Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean that adding new features couldn't be addressed as well.

Every time I see CoinHoarder post here I laugh he hates Litecoin but can't remove the Litecoin logo from his avatar. So everytime he posts he's helping Litecoin LOL

Why does a crypto currency have to be either functional, secure, with limited features or nonfunctional, insecure, with features? I don't see it as every crypto having to be either or, and there being no middle ground. Functionality and security are things that can be worked out (or proven in terms of security) over time or via extensive testing. Litecoin could add new features, meanwhile extensively beta testing new features, and remain functional and secure.

The problem here is that Litecoin is an expensive beat up old town car and the Jaguar is in (most cases) cheaper, as it relates to crypto currency and the market at this point in time. There are several coins with a lot more features than Litecoin that are a fraction of the price, even more so when you count crypto currencies that are entering development and fundraising right now.

That's what test nets are for. Since Litecoin apparently has such high security standards, you could very well test new features on test net upwards of a year or more until you are comfortable releasing them on the main net. That seems like overkill to me personally, but I don't see that as an excuse not to add features. You could at least work on new features and release them on the test net. If people knew new features were coming it would help with market sentiment, and you still wouldn't have to subject the main net to possible security problems.

That doesn't mean that I don't have a basic knowledge of the software development process. I am not clueless when it comes to programming... I took 2 years of Java and C++ when I was in school and I have built a few web pages from scratch. I have a basic understanding when it comes to software development from school, also from closely following many applications, crypto currencies, and games being developed in the past. I don't think you write code either, so I'm not sure what your point is with saying that I don't. Beta tests and test nets can be used to root out the most obvious/serious security flaws and bugs. I agree that as more people look over the code base it is inherently more secure, but this argument has been used versus a lot of the newer crypto currencies. I think it goes a long way in that most (if not all) of them have not had major security issues or bugs, so much so that it would demolish the value of the crypto currency. Again, extensive beta testing is key as to this point by testing everything on the test net and having an external security audit would be key as well.

Not everyone has millions of dollars in crypto (that's just a wild guess) like you do and is so paranoid about security. Most people are, generally speaking, putting a lot less money than that into these new crypto currencies. They are mostly not jeopardizing their life style or retirement by investing in these coins. I guess you are already happy with the amount of money you have made from your crypto investments and coin business, but most people here have not made anywhere close to that kind of money yet. That will push most of them towards newer cryptos and to take a risk on something that could be very big. Sure, it is more risky than Bitcoin/Litecoin, but if one of those projects does very well then I'd venture to say the ROI could far surpass what could be had in the "safer and more secure" crypto currencies. See Nxt for an example, it was risky as hell to invest in their IPO and I think that is why hardly anyone did, but the original backers came out very well- making millions of dollars during the time Bitcoin/Litecoin have more than halved in value. It just depends on how risk adverse or risk prone you are. I don't think most people here are gambling their rent money (or money to feed their kids) on new crypto currencies, it is more of a fun hobby for most people.

focus

Here is another statement for you to think about:

If continuous non-innovation means something can be destroyed if not fixed to be protected against the dangers, then the chance of ultimate non-success is high.

The case of car manufacturers doesn't apply to crypto currencies, because even if car manufacturers simply copy others' inventions and make no innovations of their own, their products bear no risk of destruction or collapse. While if the dangers of 51% attack and monopolization/centralization that PoW crypto currencies face are not removed, they risk losing value and not being able to compete against truely decentralized cryptos.

When quoting me it is always a good idea to link the quote you are using.

Good job failing there. 

I agree, look at MastCoin, huge innovation but the price is stuck

According to smoothie (i will quote his post if you don't believe me) the larger the available supply of a coin is, the greater its marketcap is.

So, i won't take seriously any thread started by this "genius". 

CH I agree that things will be changing with physical storage of crypto coins.

Yes at some point things do need to be added in order to keep up with demand. But that isn't the simplest thing to implement into a now 2.75 year old coin.

The network has to accept the changes. That is a big obstacle.

My main point really is that functionality (security etc) vs features ....functionality wins.

I can drive a beat up old car to town just like I could drive a Jaguar to town but the difference in those is I would have to take on more risk buying an expensive vehicle to do so.

Features are nice but one thing I stand by is that anything added that has not been tested very well over time is not something I want to touch.

You admit it, you aren't someone who writes software. So please follow me when I say that time tested software along with multiple parties double checking everything to make sure there are no security flaws or bugs in the code is essential.

Anyone who knows how to program on a basic level can release a new coin and then put new features on it that are not tested well. My other point here is that software that isn't tested well (which most of them are still pretty new) are not on my radar for the near future. Should some of those other coins past the test of time...then perhaps I'll take a look. Until then they are on my ignore list. lol

I really like your coins (even though I am not the biggest LTC fan).
How much you sold already if its not secret?

I already went over your examples here.


You are not easy to impress.. no wonder you're calling everything a "gimmick" and "bells and whistles". Again, these companies have innovated in the past and continue to focus on doing so. I find this point is pretty weak.


I don't think anyone believes it is a requirement, however you can't deny that it helps in regards to market sentiment. Litecoin just looks like another clone coin when you focus on what makes it different from Bitcoin. Having added and new innovative features will help attract new users that may not have participated otherwise. Although you and the Litecoin community doesn't like bells and whistles, there is a large amount of people that do. Otherwise there wouldn't be a market for luxury vehicles, planes, mansions, etcera.


This is one of the only things Litecoin has going for it was being at the right place at the right time. However, will that stand the test of time.. especially if Litecoin doesn't innovate to compete with their competitors? If a new crypto is coming out that was fairly released, had the same money supply and algorithm, same everything as Litecoin... yet, it had many innovative features that some (or ideally most) people would want to use. Will Litecoin be able to compete against this in the long run if they are allergic to change?


Again.. bells and whistles are not a neccessity, but they are a luxury. Who wouldn't want a luxury vehicle compared to an economy vehicle if you can buy them at the same price? This is part of the reason why buy support for Litecoin is drying up. I have recently seen it blamed on ASIC miners dumping coins, but that is simply market sentiment at play. If they were confident in the long term success of Litecoin, they would keep the mined coins in Litecoin and not dump them instantly.


Newer cryptos will be proven functionable and secure over time, as they survive attack free and more eyes look over the codebase. When they are first released obviously it is more risky to invest in them, but the saying goes... no risk no reward. The most successful ALT in recent history is Nxt and only about 70 people were willing to take the risk, yet they have seen a big reward. You know why? Because Nxt was innovative.


Most coins are crap, but there are some diamonds in the rough. If you do your research on each coin it is fairly easy to tell where the duds are and what coins actually have a chance of succeeding. Those that don't do their homework or sign on for pump and dumps deserve whatever may happen. There is a big difference in between gimmick innovation (changing a few parameters/the algo... aka. Litecoin) and actual innovation. Being able to tell the difference is important.


I'm not surprised. I will try to be as honest as possible on this point.

I will not deny you have done well for yourself and your coin business. You have good designs, quality, and your coins are popular. In my opinion the old way of making physical crypto currencies will be phased out soon for more innovative approaches, and you might find yourself out of business in a couple years if you don't adapt. Litecoin is in the same boat, and that is how I am tying this into the topic. What I mean by that is the old model of physical cryptos have been proven insecure due to the solvent attack. Even worse, your competition is innovating awesome new ways to store coins offline including hardware wallets, smart cards, and NFC wallets with physically unclonable function capabilities. There are numerous projects making all three of those. At some point I think the novelty factor will wear off due to the security issues, and people will prefer higher technological options that are more secure.

I look at your success in the coin business the same way I look at Litecoin's success in the cryptocoin economy, a short term success if you guys do not adapt and innovate.


Yes, you are right here. It doesn't guarantee success because your a crypto currency needs to still be launched fairly, be proven secure, have actual innovations instead of gimmick innovations, or fill a niche. Innovation doesn't guarantee success, but if you nail the other important pieces along with having actual innovations, there is no reason why your coin shouldn't be wildly successful. The "niche" that Litecoin provides ( quicker block time, more money supply, Scrypt algorithm) can be done on coins that actually innovate and have more features. So again, what would you choose if you could buy them at the same price... a luxury car or an economy car? This is why I expect other coins to catch up to Litecoin in the long run as the network effect slowly wears off.

I agree. My own riecoin (riecoin.org) is innovative but didn't have the success that other less innovative coins had. However perseverance is another trait that -like innovation- can lead to success. I'll keep pushing it as far as I can.

By the way, it's funny that all those wildly successful companies you mentioned have webpages specifically for their determination to be innovative.

I found Litecoin's innovation webpage too with a quick Google search: http://www.this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/

First you should start by editing out of the OP your examples of companies that "weren't innovative" since you obviously know nothing about those companies. All 3 companies you mentioned didn't start out by making cars, so no they did not "copy Ford." If you spent the time to research your examples you will find they all have a history of innovating:

Toyota is successful today because they innovated, maybe you should learn about their history before calling them copy cats. They have a long history of innovating starting with the way cars are mass produced and built to today where they pioneered hybrid vehicles via the Prius.
Honda's history: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/
Honda's recent innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/

Honda got its start innovating the use of auxillary engines in motorcycles and is still today focused on innovation.
Honda's history: http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/index.html
Honda's current innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/

Although Kia didn't get its start innovating products per say, it was the first company in South Korea to make domestic bicycle, motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Today they definitely have a strong focus towards innovating and were innovative in the US market by making vehicles affordable, among other recent innovations.
Kia's history: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovation
Kia's current Innovations: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovation

Maybe you should research claims a little bit before you make them? It took me 5 minutes to look all this up...

As to the rest, I'll give you the attention you so badly want a little later.. I'm busy.  

Innovation doesn't always equate to success.

I've heard the misconception on this forum that for a coin to succeed it needs to be innovative.

I don't believe that is a 100% truth. I've said it many times before that FORD was innovative with the invention of the automobile but Toyota, Honda, kia and every other automobile maker was not really innovative (IMO) as they basically copied the invention.

Now had those auto dealers invent (or innovate) the concept of an airplane. That is something worth noting and is innovative.

Let's squash this misconception that INNOVATION is required in order to be successful.

Sometimes luck plays a factor in being successful as well as other variables and dynamics.

Just because a particular crypto coin doesn't have the "whistles" and "bells" you think it should does not mean the coin you are critiquing will not be successful.

I would venture to say that if the underlying functionality and security of a crypto coin are sound then the free-market will choose whether it is "successful" enough for them to pour money into it.

Looks like most of the crap coins around here although they may have lots of "features" have not experienced success in terms of acceptance by many.

I will even use myself as an example. My physical coins are a copy (in essence) of Mike Caldwell's physical bitcoins that he started in 2011. Yes I made them to support both Litecoin and Bitcoin and have my own design but I did not need to be really innovative (have whistles and bells) in order to be successful. Much of it had to do with (IMO) timing as well as marketing and some luck.

Personally I believe the coins I have sold have been a success as there have been many around the world who buy them and continue to do so. They are not coerced nor forced to. But willingly do so.

There you have it. Innovation can lead to success but it doesn't guarantee you success.