Earlier quoted context omitted.
Litecoin as well? I think the goal (forcefully allowing a wider base by reducing the ability of big players) seems like a good one. It prevents centralization, which is kinda the point of the whole thing.
People could still create humongous litecoin mining farms if it were profitable to do so, leading to the same centralization issue of having large mining pools/firms that are somewhat dominant. That said, the point of Bitcoin is not to avoid that; it is to avoid forced centralization by governments (among other things), which we have for fiat money, and it is succeeding at that. Bitcoin is not supposed to be a democr…
Yes, bitcoin is not a democratic currency. But it is designed (and desired) to prevent all power from landing in the hands of very few / one, since then the entire foundation it's built on is worthless. Bitcoin is fundamentally stronger with more players, and Litecoin is easier for more players to join.
Absolutely, it came out a distant second, and that very well could be it's death. But why is there no real point in having more than one? With more than one, "money" is more resilient against new crypto attacks.