Corrections & methodology changes

2 October 2026 · evidence and information-gain review

Screening covered 177 published articles. Nineteen targeted articles received source or arithmetic reviews; this is not a full fact-check of every claim in the archive. Original URLs and publication dates remain unchanged. AI-assisted review, with no independent external reviewer claimed.

New frozen packages publish 1,001 early block headers, 998 early output-zero checks, 14,278 decoded transaction rows in 50 blocks and declared financial/capacity scenarios. Models are labelled separately from observations. The payment-provider review identifies an off-chain denominator exclusion instead of converting a rounded share into an exact global adoption count.

• Why a large Litecoin transaction is not always a whale transfer: Replaced unsupported all-time ranking with 14,278 captured mainnet rows in blocks 3188200–3188249; reviewed change and HogEx limitations.
• What Litecoin’s first 1,001 block headers actually show: Reconstructed all headers at heights 0–1000; removed unsupported miner, geography and dormancy claims.
• We checked 998 early Litecoin outputs. Unspent does not mean lost: Replaced unsupported lost-supply and owner estimates with 998 explicit output-zero checks; reviewed selection, null results and cutoff identity.
• What 50 Litecoin blocks tell us about MWEB activity: Replaced unsupported long-term usage and dormancy claims with 50-block HogAddr and kernel observations.
• Litecoin Summit Amsterdam: the verified dates and what remains unconfirmed: Corrected dates and venue; removed unsupported first-person reporting, unsupported programme and demo claims.
• What a 51% Litecoin attack estimate must assume: Replaced unsupported actual-cost/rental and impossibility claims with declared additional-capacity scenarios.
• Do people pay with Litecoin? Read the denominator before the headline: Checked the latest three primary provider reports; exposed off-chain denominator exclusion and removed unsupported global and cross-provider adoption claims.
• Is Litecoin a ghost chain? Six claims that need different evidence: Replaced unsourced growth and user figures with explicit definitions and linked frozen observations.
• A Litecoin treasury stock is not Litecoin: holdings, dilution and NAV: Updated stale holdings with dated primary announcement; avoided incompatible-date NAV and added synthetic per-share sensitivity model.
• Is Litecoin legal? Check the activity, provider and jurisdiction: Removed unsupported world legal map; checked selected regulator materials and made activity, entity and dated-scope distinctions explicit.
• Spending Litecoin with a crypto card: check the route and the real cost: Removed unsupported card rankings and universal LTC eligibility; added source-based feature distinctions and reproducible synthetic costs.
• Litecoin block rewards: every halving and the final subsidy: Recorded an actual 2 October source/calculation consistency review; original study cutoffs and publication date retained.
• Litecoin's codebase: Bitcoin ancestry, consensus changes and MWEB: Recorded an actual 2 October source/calculation consistency review; original study cutoffs and publication date retained.
• $1,000 at Litecoin milestones: a reproducible historical comparison: Recorded an actual 2 October source/calculation consistency review; original study cutoffs and publication date retained.
• What our node has observed about Litecoin confirmation times so far: Recorded an actual 2 October source/calculation consistency review; original study cutoffs and publication date retained.

Four overlapping guides now have distinct purposes: fee budgets after subsidy, asset and network preflight, merchant Lightning acceptance, and downloadable inventory records. Six related pages received context links; their existing review records were preserved.

The Summit page withdraws unsupported first-person reporting. The large-transaction page withdraws its unsourced all-time and owner ranking. Three older articles now have actual dated review records matching the renewed checks; historical study cutoffs remain fixed.

Affected URLs, scope and sources · JSON · Versioned evidence catalogue

1 October 2026 · legacy article corrections

Screening covered all 176 published articles; that is not a full fact-check of every claim. Eleven targeted articles below received source-based rewrites. Their original URLs and publication dates are retained, with visible correction notices and updated review records. AI-assisted review; no independent reviewer or security audit is claimed.

• Litecoin Core 0.21.5.5: what the release notes actually changed: Unsupported peer-banning, adoption, performance and personal-experience claims were removed. The release summary now follows the official notes.
• Checking Litecoin Core security claims against release notes: The earlier security-audit framing and unsupported implementation, activation and performance claims were withdrawn.
• Litecoin withdrawal charges: compare the service quote with the network fee: Unverified exchange charges, the purported 23-exchange median and unsupported network-fee statistics were removed. Illustrations are explicitly separated from actual quotes.
• How exchanges account for your Litecoin deposits and withdrawals: Unsupported internal wallet ratios, universal confirmation thresholds and blanket legal ownership claims were replaced with observable checks and clearly labelled architecture examples.
• Choosing a Litecoin mining pool: fees, payout rules and variance: Unsupported pool market shares and fee rankings were removed. A sourced pool example and an explicitly hypothetical solo-variance calculation replace them.
• Litecoin security revenue after halvings: what the arithmetic can tell us: Unsourced historical price, hashrate and fee estimates were replaced with labelled scenarios. Miner subsidy revenue is no longer equated with an attack-cost estimate.
• Litecoin and Dogecoin merged mining: stress-test both revenue streams: Unsupported revenue-share ranges and attack-cost conclusions were removed. Merged mining no longer implies that every successful proof solves both chains simultaneously.
• Scrypt ASIC economics after the next Litecoin halving: Unsupported hardware forecasts and market estimates were replaced with transparent halving, energy and operating-margin calculations linked to the frozen hardware study.
• Can you stake Litecoin? Understand what an LTC yield product actually does: Blanket claims about every yield product, absence of scripting and self-custody risk were corrected. Unverified product availability and anecdotes were removed.
• Litecoin sentiment and on-chain activity: compare the evidence carefully: Unsupported network and institutional statistics, price-prediction conclusions and an unverified personal trading story were removed. Metric definitions and limitations replace them.
• Lite Strategy covered calls: reported proceeds and the payoff trade-off: Unsupported quarterly figures, option terms, certainty claims and ETF comparisons were removed. Historical company disclosures are distinguished from a hypothetical payoff example.

Scope, affected URLs and primary sources · JSON.

LTCC fee report corrected

The historical LTCC fee report now withdraws the unsupported 0.39% fee-cut claim, flow estimates and personal-experience statements. The corrected account refers to the issuer’s 0.95% published fee at the check. The historical URL is retained and is not evidence of the withdrawn announcement.

27 September 2026 · Author background and About page

The author biography previously combined forex and cryptocurrency activity under a single 2007 start date. It now links to documented background and distinguishes the dates supported by the publisher history from unconfirmed personal trading dates. The new author profile identifies related projects and distinguishes editorial responsibility from independent review.

The About page no longer presents stale article/tool counts, every-second source updates, blanket multi-model and human review claims, or an unsupported list of routinely used data suppliers. It now links to the actual source status, methods and public correction record.

24 September 2026 · Public log introduced

This log begins with the research and practical-tools release. It is not a complete reconstruction of earlier edits. Existing article publication dates remain unchanged.

Evidence labels clarified

The footer's broad claim of “verified cryptocurrency market experience” was replaced with a link to the named bylines, sources and methodology. An author biography is not evidence that every article has received an independent review.

Publication and review dates separated

Article edit timestamps remain labelled as edits. Where a recorded fact-check exists, its date and available sources are shown separately; missing reviewer information is not filled with an invented name.

New measurements have a defined starting point

The research archive states its collection start, exposes retrieval and source timestamps, and reports missing observations. It does not backdate a monitoring history or relabel block timestamps as measured confirmation durations.

Report a correction

Use the contact page with the affected URL, the statement or calculation in question, and the evidence supporting the correction. Never include wallet recovery material.

24 September 2026 · introductory and recovery guides

The introductory guide still contained unsupported incident-free claims, an incorrect genesis date and stale statistics despite an earlier correction notice. We replaced the body with a sourced explanation and a reproducible payment example. Adding a notice had not resolved the contradictory text.

The pending-transaction guide now separates network records from service crediting and removes blanket assurances and unverified wallet-specific instructions. The recovery guide no longer implies that any seed guarantees recovery; it states format and configuration requirements and links to the actual Core experiment.

Original publication dates remain unchanged. Other title and tool-link edits are editorial maintenance, not a claim that the entire article collection was independently fact-checked today.