Everyone knows how easy it was to generate coins at the beginning of a blockchain’s history. Therefore the idea that people with a lot of coins have invested a lot is ridiculous. Any argument based on their initial investment is absurd. The current value is more relevant, but for early adopters it’s almost entirely profit no matter how volatile the market gets.
People who have a lot coins and hold onto them argue that they are holding them because they got lucky and are optimistic but there is no proof of the value. They also say there is not enough information to show that coins are a currency or what it represents. The only way to demonstrate to these people the potential of coins is to show the coins filling traditional roles and behaving like money they are familiar with. So they sit on it and accuse all other alternatives to be scams because of the lack of proof. The problem is that they are unwilling to risk and test the coins to see what will happen. This is where the paranoia comes in. They acquired the coins very cheaply, yet they are unwilling to risk the profits they have. It would take a huge catastrophe for them to lose their initial investment yet they will not move.
It’s as if you were afraid you’ll drown so you decide to never go out on your boat even though you have a giant boat. Paranoid, plain and simple.
The result is that they say there is no proof of the potential of coins, but will not try anything to find out. So when people who are creative come along and want to try something, they will not offer any coins to work with. Not only that, but because the large coin holders have no needs they will not hire anyone. Stagnation results and they blame the coin when it is they who are sitting their going, “Me gold! Me gold!”
So the situation for creative risk takers who don’t need a huge pile to get moving:
We can’t use Bitcoins because they are not coming.
We can’t create our own coin because the paranoid say it’s a scam.
The opportunities are closed from both the self-producer side and the trader side.
By definition this is a block.
It is intended to protect their holdings.
It results in an undebatable abritrary wall against participation.
They are responsible regardless of whether they intended to block.
Even if they only intend to protect their holdings, which is a criminally naive notion, they are blocking access.
I wish it ended there, but it’s worse:
A gallery of collosal absurdities
We’re supposed to believe these lazy idiots want to protect their holdings and therefore should be allowed to be trusted nodes because they wouldn’t cut their own profits.
We’re supposed to forget the history of corporatism where companies spend plenty of money underselling a competitor at a loss so they can make up the losses later through monopoly power.
We’re supposed to forget corporations acquiring property using sweetheart loans from banks owned by their friends.
We’re supposed to forget the same corporations wiping out local industry.
There is little difference between the sweetheart loans and the mass of coins acquired in the beginning.
And we’re supposed to believe there are no profitable hostile strategies in play.
This is insulting.
We’re not putting up with it.
Litecoin will succeed as long as the community stays fresh and vibrant.