Quote from: tonyk on June 16, 2014, 08:57:23 PM
Do you think it would be a bad image if you have a product that does not create a demand for itself?

[EDIT] Even if it is meant to test  a technology to be used in 100 products that do create demand for themselves

well XT doesn't, but it's at least a proto-DAC for X which does (XT -> X association). Litecoin doesn't and neither would litecoin 2.0 (Litecoin association).

Plus XT is more about the snapshot than about testing. We would not launch either one until we're "sure" it works, as both are intended for real transactions

I also cant see so much pros ...

Converting pts to dpos 100% soon makes more sense too me than just another altcoi.

 Do you think it would be a bad image if you have a product that does not create a demand for itself?

[EDIT] Even if it is meant to test  a technology to be used in 100 products that do create demand for themselves

Not sure what you mean, I meant that it is because of "bad image" in two ways: underselling our product and misleading about what our product is all about

Quote from: toast on June 16, 2014, 08:07:43 PM

Plus the whole point is that we build DACs that generate demand for themselves. Litecoin 2.0 would not do this.

Other than pure stubbornness, is there any logic driving such decision?
Bad image???

Quote from: toast on June 16, 2014, 08:07:43 PM
I think image issues... Calling it "Litecoin 2.0" will make people undervalue how much innovation there.
Plus litecoin is sort of defined by its POW algorithm innovation, calling it litecoin 2.0 is very clearly just piggybacking off of the brand.

Plus the whole point is that we build DACs that generate demand for themselves. Litecoin 2.0 would not do this.

Just call it proofofconceptfordelegatedproofofstakecoin then? Hahahahahaha!

I think image issues... Calling it "Litecoin 2.0" will make people undervalue how much innovation there.
Plus litecoin is sort of defined by its POW algorithm innovation, calling it litecoin 2.0 is very clearly just piggybacking off of the brand.

Plus the whole point is that we build DACs that generate demand for themselves. Litecoin 2.0 would not do this.

Quote from: tonyk on June 16, 2014, 07:27:54 PM
Now that DPOS is pretty close to being ready, why not test it as 90% airdrop on LTC (90/5/5 TLC/PTS/AGS)?


-One should not be concerned even with massive dump – it is not some core DAC that needs to preserve value;
- Much bigger test base (as number of transactions/participants etc.)
-The non-inflation feature of DPOC vs POW combined with the very low dilution of LTS might just work and bring significant benefits from something that we planned for just as a DPOS test run.

This would be an intriguing test.
It'd be fascinating to see how it would be received by people.
Would you call it Delitecoin?

Pardon my ignorance / lack of understanding, but I don't know exactly what you mean by, "The non-inflation feature of DPOC vs POW combined with the very low dilution of LTS".
Can someone explain this?

Are there any other altcoins worth considering as well as or instead of Litecoin?

Maybe the percentages could be based of relative market-caps at date of snapshot, so that the airdrop-split is derived from a LTC+PTS+AGS total.

Also maybe add a developer incentive either via percentage cut or dilution-paying for development/marketing/growth. Hell why not use your typo and just name it the TLC-percentage.

Now that DPOS is pretty close to being ready, why not test it as 90% airdrop on LTC (90/5/5 LTC/PTS/AGS)?


-One should not be concerned even with massive dump – it is not some core DAC that needs to preserve value;
- Much bigger test base (as number of transactions/participants etc.)
-The non-inflation feature of DPOS vs POW combined with the very low dilution of LTS might just work and bring significant benefits from something that we planned for just as a DPOS test run.

[Edit] The name is not important at all. You can call it DPOS Coin...