user1878: The main differentiator between Litecoin and Bitcoin appears to be the quantity of coins available, the frequency in which the blocks are mined, and the mining technology is different.
The first benefit "Quantity" appears to be a subdivision of another arbitrary fixed value.  Since BTC is easily divisible, I don't see the the benefit of having more units that can also be subdivided.
The second benefit "Frequency" appears to create more blocks for the sake of creating blocks, and the safety zone of one 1 hour double spend attack has changed from 6 blocks BTC to 150 blocks Litecoin.  (no benefit) 
So what economic value does litecoin provide 

During the high value mining period?  (high block reward)
During the low value mining period? (low block reward)

In other words, it seems that the initial differences between BTC and Lightcoin deal with the block reward, but once that is used up (or too low of a value) there isn't much more that makes Lightcoin more exceptional than BTC.

user3090: One of Scrypts design goals was to make CPU mining and GPU mining equally effective.  They tried to do this through requiring lots of quick memory access, so the process ends up being more limited by memory bandwidth and response time.
ASIC and FGPA has not and will not solve the problem, because adding the amount of memory needed is a daunting design task.
Outside of Scrypt there is very little difference between BTC and LTC.
I'm honestly not sure why anyone even buys into LTC, where are the people using it?  Is Silk Road using LTC or is there some kind of LTC gambling?

user4748: What protects you from a double-spend attack is not how slow or fast are the blocks generated, but the amount of processing power applied into creating those blocks so that it's unfeasible for an attacker to beat the combined hashing power of the rest of the network, minus the uncertainty inherent in the (unavoidable) orphaned blocks.
Now, whence do you get that the protection for a double spend attack comes from 6 blocks in Bitcoin, but 150 in Litecoin? Even a very naïf analysis would yield 24 blocks which still equals an hour (4x generation speed, I wait for 4x blocks). It's actually just 12 blocks, so only need to wait for half an hour.
If I were to accept a virtual currency in exchange of a cup of coffee, I'd definitely prefer Litecoin if only because of this.

user575: The frequency of blocks (2.5 min vs. 10 min) does indeed mean it takes less time to obtain a similar level of security, this is an advantage. The idea that only the total amount of computation matters is a myth - see https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf.
Of course, there are also disadvantages with the choice of shorter time constant, but it's safe to say that 2.5 min is a better choice than 10 min.

user2630: The major difference between litecoin and bitcoin is the hashing function. Bitcoin uses SHA-256 while litecoin uses scrypt. scrypt "is designed to be far more secure against hardware brute-force attacks than alternative functions" [1]. By hardware brute-force attacks they basically mean ASICs such as the ones coming out of butterfly labs. For instance the advantage that GPUs have above CPUs when mining litecoins is much much smaller than the advantage they have for mining bitcoins. It may well be that at some point ASICs will be made for litecoin, but the creators of litecoin specifically chose the hash function to make that happen as far in the future as possible.
The other differences are trivial, but it may be nicer to have confirmations come in faster. The only real difference to having blocks made faster will mean that transactions will sit at 0 confirmations for less time. However still the absolute number of confirmations a transaction is not what makes it safe, but rather the amount of computation that has gone into making those confirmations.

1878: <p>The main differentiator between Litecoin and Bitcoin appears to be the quantity of coins available, the frequency in which the blocks are mined, and the mining technology is different.</p>

<p>The first benefit "Quantity" appears to be a subdivision of another arbitrary fixed value.  Since BTC is easily divisible, I don't see the the benefit of having more units that can also be subdivided.</p>

<p>The second benefit "Frequency" appears to create more blocks for the sake of creating blocks, and the safety zone of one 1 hour double spend attack has changed from 6 blocks BTC to 150 blocks Litecoin.  (no benefit) </p>

<p>So what economic value does litecoin provide </p>

<ul>
<li>During the high value mining period?  (high block reward)</li>
<li>During the low value mining period? (low block reward)</li>
</ul>

<p>In other words, it seems that the initial differences between BTC and Lightcoin deal with the block reward, but once that is used up (or too low of a value) there isn't much more that makes Lightcoin more exceptional than BTC.</p>
 3090: <p>One of Scrypts design goals was to make CPU mining and GPU mining equally effective.  They tried to do this through requiring lots of quick memory access, so the process ends up being more limited by memory bandwidth and response time.</p>

<p>ASIC and FGPA has not and will not solve the problem, because adding the amount of memory needed is a daunting design task.</p>

<p>Outside of Scrypt there is very little difference between BTC and LTC.</p>

<p>I'm honestly not sure why anyone even buys into LTC, where are the people using it?  Is Silk Road using LTC or is there some kind of LTC gambling?</p>
 4748: <p>What protects you from a double-spend attack is not how slow or fast are the blocks generated, but the amount of processing power applied into creating those blocks so that it's unfeasible for an attacker to beat the combined hashing power of the rest of the network, minus the uncertainty inherent in the (unavoidable) orphaned blocks.</p>

<p>Now, whence do you get that the protection for a double spend attack comes from 6 blocks in Bitcoin, but 150 in Litecoin? Even a very naïf analysis would yield 24 blocks which still equals an hour (4x generation speed, I wait for 4x blocks). It's actually just 12 blocks, so only need to wait for half an hour.</p>

<p>If I were to accept a virtual currency in exchange of a cup of coffee, I'd definitely prefer Litecoin if only because of this.</p>
 575: <p>The frequency of blocks (2.5 min vs. 10 min) does indeed mean it takes less time to obtain a similar level of security, this is an advantage. The idea that only the total amount of computation matters is a myth - see <a href="https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf</a>.</p>

<p>Of course, there are also disadvantages with the choice of shorter time constant, but it's safe to say that 2.5 min is a better choice than 10 min.</p>
 2630: <p>The major difference between litecoin and bitcoin is the hashing function. Bitcoin uses <strong>SHA-256</strong> while litecoin uses <strong>scrypt</strong>. scrypt "is designed to be far more secure against hardware brute-force attacks than alternative functions"<a href="http://www.tarsnap.com/scrypt.html"> [1]</a>. By hardware brute-force attacks they basically mean ASICs such as the ones coming out of butterfly labs. For instance the advantage that GPUs have above CPUs when mining litecoins is much much smaller than the advantage they have for mining bitcoins. <strong>It may well be that at some point ASICs will be made for litecoin, but the creators of litecoin specifically chose the hash function to make that happen as far in the future as possible.</strong></p>

<p>The other differences are trivial, but it may be nicer to have confirmations come in faster. The only real difference to having blocks made faster will mean that transactions will sit at 0 confirmations for less time. However still the absolute number of confirmations a transaction is not what makes it safe, but rather the amount of computation that has gone into making those confirmations.</p>
