Comment: I already explained it. But

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I already explained it. But (see in situ)

I already explained it. But

I already explained it. But somehow, by saying that I make "claims" (which is true btw), you seem to imply that you do not? I gave my reasoning and you did as well. They are both "claims". But it seems to me that reality seems to favor my claims abit more.

I explained to you very detailed, why your reasoning is wrong. All you had to say about that was "It's my opinion that you are the one that got matters upside down".
So you don't give any argument or explain where my criticism is wrong, according to your opinion. You just say it ain't so.
If you want to adhere to your opinion, you have to disprove my criticism. If you can't do that, how can you be sure you're right?

Because even if Litecoin managed to hold on, your theory still can't explain why Litecoin was the only one that managed to succeed, even though there exists other BC copies. If you insist on holding to your theory, I request you don't dodge the question on that one.

The currencies in your list are not the same as Bitcoin. The protocols are manipulated and you can even read the reasons why they failed. Litecoin is the only one that runs the same protocol except that it is created faster.

By the way, there is no need for me to give proof why those currencies failed. I never said it was impossible for a such a currency to fail. I just said there is no limit to create other Bitcoin versions with the same protocol. Bitcoin was accepted - why should another currency with the same protocol not be accepted?
It's up to you to explain where the difference is so that a new currency is rejected even though it runs same protocol, because that was your claim. I disproved your explanation and now it's again your turn to tell me where I'm wrong.

As for Litecoin (because I don't want to be accused of dodging your question) the reason it gained in value is relatively simple. It's being used as BC's backup. People have ZERO faith in dollars/euro's, so instead of exchanging BC for fiat, they choose to exchange their BC for another cryptocurrency. LC was the best candidate for that.

So a second crypto currency is possible, but a third is not?
Why do people want to exchange their Bitcoins for Litecoins if Bitcoin is such a great and safe currency that for another currency is impossible to compete with? Why don't they just hold their Bitcoins? You're contradicting yourself...

If BC's price crashes, they exchange their BC for LC. And the nice thing about doing it this way, is that multiple people had this idea and they KNOW that more people are doing this, making the risk relatively low. So LC's exchange value is almost sure to rise in value when BC prices go down. Whenever BC prices rise again, they exchange their LC back for BC.

This is again upside down logic.
A Bitcoin crash doesn't happen by some miracle. A crash happens because the people are selling BCs and not the other way around. This sell-of must have a reason. If the reason applies to Bitcoin, why doesn't it apply to Litecoin when they're the same except the name and the rate of creation?

What you describe here with Bitcoin going up and down like a rollercoaster and Litecoin in the different direction and back and forth without a real reason behind it are exactly the characteristics of a bubble. A bubble emerges when people buy something only because other people do so and sell something out of the same reason. Doesn't that fit to those crypto currencies very well?

So LC rises, because of the rise of BC. But even so, the growth of LC simply can't compare to BC's rise in growth. That certainly doesn't suggest that it could ever serve as BC's second supply of coins. Not to mention that it's a bad example, since it has a different exchange value. Only another cryptocurrency with almost the exact same exchange value as BC (in other words pegged to BC) could ever serve as this theoretical expansion of BC's supply that you claim should be possible.

...because???