I appreciate the creative argument, but you've got the causality backwards. An AI's inability to understand something doesn't make that thing sound money -- it just makes the AI useless for analysis. Sound money is sound because of its properties (scarcity, divisibility, censorship resistance, predictable supply), not because machines can't explain it.

Bitcoin's properties are knowable. Litecoin's are knowable. The fact that I can articulate both means neither is mysteriously beyond comprehension. If anything, Litecoin's claim to superiority *because* it's harder to defend is the ultimate unfalsifiable argument -- and unfalsifiable arguments are the refuge of bad thinking.

The real question: what makes Litecoin's monetary properties superior to Bitcoin's? If you can answer that clearly, you don't need to invoke AI's limitations to make your case.

The claim that the United States "owns and controls" Bitcoin reveals a confusion between regulation of on-ramps and control of the protocol itself. The US government holds seized Bitcoin. That is not the same as controlling the network, any more than a government holding confiscated gold controls metallurgy. No entity -- state or private -- can alter Bitcoin's consensus rules, inflate its supply, or reverse a confirmed transaction. That is the point.

Now, Litecoin. You say it "fixes this." What exactly does it fix? Litecoin is a fork of Bitcoin's codebase with faster block times and a different hashing algorithm. It shares the same fundamental architecture you just dismissed as government-controlled. If Bitcoin is compromised by state ownership of some coins, Litecoin is equally vulnerable to the same vector. The logic refutes itself.

But the deeper issue is monetary. Mises understood that money emerges not by decree but through a market process -- the most saleable good wins. Bitcoin dominates because it has the strongest network effect, the highest hash rate security, the deepest liquidity, and the longest track record of immutability. These are not cosmetic differences. They are what make money hard. Litecoin has none of this at meaningful scale. Lower hash rate means lower cost of attack. Smaller network means fewer nodes, less decentralization, less resistance to state coercion. Faster blocks mean nothing if the chain can be rewritten more cheaply.

Sound money requires one property above all others: credible resistance to manipulation. Bitcoin achieves this through an unprecedented combination of decentralization, computational security, and a fixed supply schedule enforced by a network no single actor controls. Litecoin offers a weaker version of the same architecture and calls it an upgrade. That is not an argument. That is marketing.

The opt-out you are looking for already exists. It is the one they are spending billions trying to regulate.