Litecoin is an almost direct copy of Bitcoin. It has a shorter block interval, larger max, and a different hashing algorithm however these aren't material changes. Nobody will care how/why the network is secure just that it is secure. The shorter interval only matters on the first confirmation and 2.5 min vs 10.00 min doesn't facilitate realtime transactions. The different hashing algorithm makes it worse for microtransactions. Microtransactions implies lower value and thus lower fee value. Having an independent hashing algorithm makes means the operating cost for the network can't be shared with other chains.
A currency designed from the ground up for micro-transactions could carve out a niche but Litecoin isn't that currency.
Something incorporation the following would be interesting:
a) very short block time (say 30 seconds? some experimentation and testing would be required)
b) periodic ledger blocks (at say to allow the tail of the blockchain to be discarded)
c) merged mining (to reduce operating costs)
d) low fixed fee structure
e) flat block reward (subsidy is x coins - fees)
Yeah, that's an interesting take. Something to consider putting a team together for sometime in the future. A means of pegging to bitcoin value would be really awesome if it could be implemented somehow actually, too many different eCurrency directly competing on exchanges and for adoption with vendors/merchants is still trouble. That's my one issue with litecoin is that it's a lot of hassle for them to deal with both and exchange both with national paper currencies, how easily exchanged for each other are the litecoins and bitcoins because if there are lots of options offering straight exchanges then it seems like it would be liquid enough between the two that the competition would be healthy, but if you have to do buy/sell orders with a clearing house like it seems you have to do paper currency exchanges with either generally then I don't see how they wont end up butting heads a lot.