[iopuy]

I agree with your general sentiment for sure, why should any of this matter?

On a personal basis I feel much more secure knowing a respected member of the community has enough faith in their product to tie their identity to it. Litecoin also has features that bitcoin doesn't. Faster block generation time, different hashing algorithms, larger supply. Charlie gives me confidence that the leadership of Bitcoin has not.

[kbaker]

The other question is, if LTC ever becomes as relevant as BTC is in the marketplace (BTC has 30x marketcap), could Charlie still retain enough power to continue to be the guiding hand?

Gavin Andresen was that force in Bitcoin for years, as lead developer and chief evangelist, but now he plays a minor role; recently with big $$ in play and the big community split, not to mention the insane personal attacks, it is much harder to maintain influence.

[jmk2142]

I guess only time will tell. The thing I respect about Charlie is that he seems completely aware of the difference between being a guiding hand vs. totalitarian ruler with absolute power. He's mentioned numerous times that Litecoin is not "his" although people are free to ask him directly of his intention. Even in the little ways he articulates himself as the "benevolent dictator," as well as publicly speaking to the negatives that come with that is something that is refreshing. Not only does he have the right individual background to lead LTC to great things (whatever that actually ends up being), he has the right relations with people/stakeholders in different communities to make it happen as well.