[javert]

People could still create humongous litecoin mining farms if it were profitable to do so, leading to the same centralization issue of having large mining pools/firms that are somewhat dominant.

That said, the point of Bitcoin is not to avoid that; it is to avoid forced centralization by governments (among other things), which we have for fiat money, and it is succeeding at that.

Bitcoin is not supposed to be a democratic experiment where the little guy gets some kind of special treatment. It is a digital currency that is not backed by force.

I don't think there is any real point in having more than one cryptocurrency. Litecoin could have been great if it had come first, but Bitcoin came first, so I think there is little to no point in having Litecoin.

[Groxx]

They absolutely could build huge farms, but their advantage in doing so would be significantly less than an average person with a general purpose computer, compared to now. They would effectively have less power over the network as a whole, because it's easier to become profitable (or at least less lossy) and compete, so more people would (theoretically).

Yes, bitcoin is not a democratic currency. But it is designed (and desired) to prevent all power from landing in the hands of very few / one, since then the entire foundation it's built on is worthless. Bitcoin is fundamentally stronger with more players, and Litecoin is easier for more players to join.

Absolutely, it came out a distant second, and that very well could be it's death. But why is there no real point in having more than one? With more than one, "money" is more resilient against new crypto attacks.