Well this is never gonna happen..but imho (I know squat...just saying) if the LTC foundation really really wanted to kick start LTC they would make it more or an anonomous
coin like Moreno...but they are pretty straight laced...so that is very very unlikely.
Thou just thinking about it....if LTC had that like Moreno does now.....and asic pow..imho it would pump harder then Moreno
The key above is NOT my idea...but that LTC needs some kind of better angle then just being Silver to BTC's gold...not sure what that should be...but it is evident to
me something needs to happen on the LTC development end to shake things up or I fear a 'dull slow fade' of LTC in the future.
disagree totally gimicky stuff like anon or 'innovation' for the sake of 'innovation' is a waste of space. many coins become flavor of the minute on pumps etc but yeah wont be around longterm in any significant degree.
also the litecoin foundation isn't litecoin, anyone can market any coin anyway they wish, without any 'official' approval. thats the beauty of decentralisation
litecoin the platinum to bitcoins gold
Math-based and peer-reviewed innovation is not a gimmick.
KISS, p2p currency is not a mission to mars its currency. USD is hardly innovative yet is pretty dominate as a currency.
hell shells are used by more people on the planet today as currency then crypto.
i've not seen any 'innovation' since bitcoin thats been anything more then a gimmick (peer reviewed or not).
on the most part bitcoin itself is too complex for average joe to adopted, yet all 'innovation' todate seem to add to the complication. the only innovation thats needed is simplification.
USD is simple but it is only popular because the US government decreed it as "money/currency". But it is simple and has many flaws...like central banking and money printing that goes along with it. Simplicity comes at a cost. Just like attempts at privacy, it comes at a cost. You don't get something for nothing.
I agree KISS, but sometimes complex systems are necessary to accomplish certain goals (and to solve certain problems). And in that complexity it is good to keep things as simple as possible without layering additional complexity that is not needed.
It appears that you have your own standard of what "innovation" is, (peer reviewed or not).
I've looked at the monero code and actually found that there is a lot of merit to what is claimed.
1. To me monero is innovative as it is NOT based on Bitcoin's code like Litecoin is (im not hating on litecoin at all).
2. Monero also does something that bitcoin should have been doing based upon satoshi's original vision (true P2P cash).
Bitcoin is not fungible on the socio-economical level as monero is. Black listing of bitcoin (and litecoin) is possible. It is in this that monero solves that problem that bitcoin has, not to mention dynamically scaling block size that does not require a hard fork like bitcoin or litecoin would need to accomplish.
Let's agree to disagree that your opinion of what is and isn't "innovative" can be a gimmick.
In my honest opinion, monero is innovative enough to not merit a claim of being called a "gimmick".
I agree that the average joe will need things to be simple. Yes. But I disagree that the ONLY innovation is simplicity at this point.
Not all problems are simple to solve. Privacy is not a simple problem to solve. That is the reality on that topic.