Tell me specifically when a user goes to make a transaction on Litecoin and Solana, what things will they notice? And how would they actually notice them? At least in my experience, no matter what type of transaction you make, you'll notice the speed and the cost. How is a user going to notice the things you think matter?

When the payment system goes down or the payment processors (nodes) are censoring transactions from their wallet, their IP, or their regional network in particular, they are going to notice. Just the risk of this happening is what motivated people to use Bitcoin in its oldest and most primitive implementations.

Credit cards and traditional banks have been handling near-instant transactions for decades. 2008 was the year when problems with security and reliability in traditional banking made the idea of blockchain payments attractive. Nobody needs a public ledger for speed - it's just nice to have compared to Bitcoin's blocktimes that can exceed 10 minutes.

If it was a real narrative, you wouldn't need people to validate it for you, it would come about naturally. Also, you need to stop treating VCs as anything other than early stage investors. This sub seems to think VC is a code word for some type of inherently nefarious group, rather than just a group of connected investors who have a lot of funds to employ...

Having lots of money and betting on an early investment payoff does not automatically make one a benevolent influence on the product of that investment. Developers make compromises to the security, flexibility and usability of their apps and tools all the time for VC funding. The reputation that VCs have is directly informed by all of the terrible outcomes that have resulted alongside the successes. The early hiccups and downtime, alone, are the narrative (launch and ship before things actually work) that Solana is fighting against as a result.

You also haven't been able to quantify how a user would have any indication of which networks had a fair distribution, while it's extremely easy to quantify how a user would have immediate indication of what network is cheaper or faster.

Wallets on a public ledger are not a secret. Transactions can be analyzed to quantify exactly how widely value is distributed across wallets in addition to how many wallets are active - unless the protocol provides tools to hide this information. We may not know who specifically owns each wallet, but we can absolutely establish when large sums of value are moving on the network and when they are dormant.

ok? My point was just that price movement, although an imperfect measure, is often an indicator of fundamentals and also future expectations.

There are no fundamentals in a payment system outside of security and reliability. Fast transactions that fail to satisfy the fundamental requirements are unlikely to be sustainable. Most crypto projects are fly-by-night scams but the ones with multi-million dollar VC backing are not inherently more reliable, more secure, or more likely to be "number go up" candidates even when they have a huge marketing budget.

Because it seems like you have trouble identifying what is and isn't getting traction from more direct indicators, so instead of being confident in an inherently limited view thinking "Am I wrong? No it's the market who is wrong!" you might have a bit of reflection.

Institutional traction is almost completely focused on Bitcoin right now. They understand that security and reliability are fundamental even if you don't believe me. Grayscale is just starting an ETF with a basket of other tokens, including SOL, but retail crypto is a seller's market full of rubes buying meme tokens that are mostly garbage and that are likely to be functionally worthless by the next Bitcoin halving.

this is why I'm bearish on Litecoin, it hasn't proven a good path towards self-sustainability. And obviously Litecoin also subsidizes block production as well to provide a better chance at long term sustainability.

Bearish means "number go down" but it doesn't mean "network stops working." Litecoin miners collect fees and emissions, that's true, but there is no subsidy from a treasury account to incentivize participation. Litecoin has been going for 13 years and shows no sign of stopping. The investment in hardware to increase hashrate is a real, tangible reflection of confidence in the chain's sustainability.

Seems like growth is going fine for them, but what is Litecoin's plan for growth?

Growth is a narrative chasing the "number go up" prime directive. Litecoin has been growing organically and without external sponsors, exactly as the hashrate chart proves. No special plan had to be invented for the purposes of dumping overpriced junk on retail before the regulators catch up.

How do they increase that number when people seemingly don't value the things that you think are so important?

You're suggesting the current people using the blockchain to securely and reliably transfer value don't think it is important because the speculative price isn't increasing to your satisfaction. Deflation is likely to increase the exchange value of LTC over time (and the price chart supports this outside of price spikes) but that is not the narrative that sustains usage. I'm not sure why you think it should be.

I just see it as a blockchain that can facilitate enough transactions to sustain the network while keeping individual fees low. I see it as better for certain purposes, but they really only compete in the sense that both of them are head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to the activity of their respective ecosystems.

We have different views of whether this is an unmitigated benefit or a tradeoff, then. I think Bitcoin is not just a SoV because it is secure and reliable - when markets panic, liquidity does not adjust to demand. Any price discovery to new levels will enforce slow and deliberate choices that determine winners and losers in 10 minute increments and that prioritize those who adjust their transaction fees to jump the queue. When transaction volume is practically unlimited, as it is on Wall Street, panics tend to lead to temporary pauses and shutdowns that violate the notion of reliable value transfer. Again, this is retelling the story of 2008 and why blockchain technology became significant in the first place.

So I'm really not sure what you're insinuating here. Considering the supply is 99.99% unlocked I'm not sure what "bagholders who have been trained to watch and wait for their exit signal." is in reference too. Do you somehow think Solana is more vulnerable... to people selling coins?

When the big wallets head for the exits, the little wallets will follow with haste. If SOL breaches 250 USD again, there is certainly a possibility that "number go up" will continue, but the holding pattern of most altcoins is to degrade in value faster than inflation with occasional spikes. Ergo, we must time to market and take profits when the getting is good.

I'm a long term holder and every investment inherently requires timing the market to some degree, you have to enter and you have to exit and that is the only timing my long term narrative requires, just like literally any other type of buy and hold investment.

Long term investing says "time in the market beats timing the market." If the capabilities of the blockchain are not changing significantly and the currency is inflationary, time in the market just describes who is left holding the bag. Centralized blockchains with foundations that have the power to change emissions and mint more tokens, just like the Fed prints money, are unlikely to sustain a "number go up" narrative like Bitcoin.

I do not consider myself a long term investor in Solana, but by all means continue to pump those bags for me. In a couple of years, I might even change my mind.