Bitcoin Forum

I have read this article on Bitcoin Magazine today. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/which-altcoins-are-implementing-segwit-1481577969

It is about two altcoins that are planning on implementing Segwit and how it is a much practical option. Those two altcoins are Litecoin and Viacoin.

The thing I took from that article is how it would be nice to see Segwit get implemented in a running mainnet but at the same time it could be seen as a running testnet for Bitcoin. It was nice of Charlie Lee, founder of Litecoin, to risk his own project just to help bring things forward for Bitcoin.

These are quotes of what he said written in the article.

"One of the goals of Litecoin is to help experiment with things that are too hard to experiment with on Bitcoin.”

“Unfortunately, Bitcoin is deadlocked with SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited. I want to see Litecoin help break that deadlock in one way or another. That means we have to take a risk: if SegWit activates on Litecoin but doesn't on Bitcoin after a year, our codebase could be very different. I'm willing to take this risk to help move things forward: for Litecoin, Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general.”

Signalling may start next week both for LTC and VIA. The soft fork is also expected to be faster for both altcoins. Time to start observing these coins and see what the anti Segwit crowd is really afraid of.

I think this is a great move. I'm a bit Old School in a sense that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and Bitcoin seems to be running strong.

I'm still not convinced SegWit is entirely necessary and perhaps people are just getting impatient.

So what if your transaction takes 1+ hour to confirm or even 24 hours? There may be Post-Asic technology right on the horizon, and I doubt most of these people that support SegWit are smarter than Satoshi. I just wish Satoshi would make a public statement about SegWit so we know if it's right or not.

When was the last time Satoshi made any sort of announcement? The last time I saw him post something on this forum was back in 2011 or some long-ass time ago like that.

I'm kind of with you when it comes to your sentiment, though. I don't know how applicable segwit really is right now.

Thats also true, thats why whatever happen and whenever it happen will be good for bitcoin.
I mean bitcoin is stronger than any of this, more powerfull.

The miners won't be support for activation of segwit here some the reasons:
Miner’s stake is almost completely compatible with the whole ecological interests: “the main chain survives, the user expansion” is the guarantee of their interests.

Their decision-making mechanism is simple: to dig, or not to dig.
 Competitions among miners are simple, fierce and bitter. ASIC machines that are out-performed by new generations will be deserted ruthlessly.

No excuse from decision-making. ASIC miners are specialized equipments that have little reclamation value or secondary functions. Their investment on hardware is absolute sinking capital. There is no immediate and easy withdrawal from ecosystem for them. They have to make decisions with the best of their rationality.

Perhaps we should find a way for some nodes to start mining again.

This will be quite interesting for Bitcoin. If SegWit has success on Litecoin, I bet many people will look at it differently. Obviously LTC is an altcoin, but it will be another interesting testbed for SegWit beyond the testnet... We'll see how this plays out.

This is pretty good. I always liked Litecoin and cobble seems like a reasonable person that supports core devs and segwit. I would like to see what happens if it's activated in Litecoin. I might buy some Litecoin just to show support. I think it's very undervalued now compared to bitcoin, it may pump hard in the future.

This is not needed. SegWit has been tested thoroughly. I don't see how an altcoin adopting and activating SegWit before Bitcoin does help SegWit activation in Bitcoin. Everybody with the slightest bit of technological understanding already knows that SegWit is a great step forward for Bitcoin in terms of capacity and security.

However, obstructionist racketeer Roger Ver is inaccessible to any reasonable argument. All he wants is to block progress at any cost, because he hopes to profit from the altcoin schemes he is endorsing. But he won't succeed and will be sidelined by the community. Another Hearn-style ragequit is only a matter of time...

ya.ya.yo!

Can you imagine what will happen if SegWit on Litecoin is hugely successful and then LN transition to LiteCoin too.  ::) ... We always say,

Bitcoin can be adopted to take any good features from another Alt coin, but when Litecoin wants to do this, people are sceptical. Let them

be the guinea pig for SegWit and if it is successful, then consensus might come quicker for Bitcoin to accept it.  ;D

Litecoin Dev are Floundering , wanting to try everything under the sun to get noticed.

SegWit is for idiots that want the Banking system to control their crypto.

Litecoin has 4X the Transaction Capacity as BTC, they should just be marketing that and the faster confirmation times.

 8)

FYI:
Chinese Mining Pools are no fools , they will Block Segwit in BTC.  ;)

He posted a statement not long ago when the News Media was wondering if "Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto" was the real Satoshi.

Story: https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/06/satoshi-dorian/

Here is Satoshi's profile page: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto

If waiting around to hear what Satoshi has to say is your thing, Bitcoin doesn't fit you well. Part of the reason he left was almost certainly to prove that mutual self-interest would drive the outcome, and that involves making your own mind up about what's in your interest.

Let me help: you're wrong. It is broke. Segwit fixes some of it. The reason Bitcoin's still going so well, is because it's constantly getting fixes. All the time.

If "everybody" knows, surely it would be much closer to activation than it currently is.  Way to insult a significant proportion of those securing the network with your condescension.  Plus, your argument is no different to those that used to argue "everyone knows we need a larger blocksize", so let's avoid generalisations and speaking for others.  One way or another, the market will decide eventually.  



Firstly, Roger Ver went on record stating he "certainly won't be the lone hold out" regarding SegWit.  Secondly, whether he personally wants to block it or not, it's not even his decision to make.  Thirdly, he can't block something that's yet to achieve the required support to activate.  So cease your boogeyman campfire stories.

It helps because we could see and observe what the effects are in a real world setting and with a risk of potentially losing value. There is a difference in testing inside the testnet and outside of it because the problems go beyond the technical. If Charlie Lee intends to implement their own Lightning Network then the problems could be economical too since it will affect the miner's fees.


How much Bitcoin is he still holding? I will not be too happy if he rage quits and dumps all his coins in the market, which I heard was a lot.

first of all.. litecoin is not used by 300,000+ merchants, so putting it on litecoin is not a comparison. the only reason litecoin was chosen is due to charlies brother bob. who is deep in the segwit rabbit hole (BTCC)

knowing that AFTER activation, MERCHANTS need to download yet another implementation that requires changing ALL the deposit addresses to new addresses should merchants want to utilise segwit, is not a quick endeavour.

litecoin wont cover that as its test as litecoin is not merchant heavy.
also the way litecoin mines blocks is not the same as bitcoin so thats not a comparison either.

the funny part is how the folk involved in core only spread their positive news and not the reality.
EG
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/
wheres the big names in merchants (that will do most transactions) coinbase/bitpay. hmm strangely not mentioned.
the hype that it has been thuroughly tested for months and they have been working with the whole industry. yet many are not even ready.
even funnier that even if ready. they end up needing to implement yet another version after activation just to get full wallet key utility.

but hey instead of releasing a version of core with dynamic blocks AND segwit. to give the community a real choice. they now want to waste time trying to get it activated on litecoin(for incompible/incomparable reasons). and then do a 'lets see what happens' and then later just push segwit back on bitcoin... surprisingly blaming one guy with 9% hash for why segwit is currently missing 75% hash.

i do find it funny that people say "everyone wants segwit". yet only 25% of pools do. and only 38% of nodes do..

core really need to make 2 releases..
0.13.1a segwit 1mb base 4mb weight(default fixed) <- the release already available
0.13.1b segwit 2mb base 4mb weight(default start with dynamic)

and then see what the community want. while still getting what they want
and stop this wait 2 years to see if segwit happens before proposing anything else, delay/stall tactics

lastly.. to add detail to BTCC (the main segwit pusher)
aswell as having a few sybil nodes running core to twist some numbers.
they are also running 54 of their own BTCC branded nodes https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=/BTCC:0.13.1/... on AMAZON servers!!

I read an article that the core developers are beginning to open up to the idea of 2mb block sizes. If Segwit does not get implemented we may see 2mb blocks happen. But I am not sure if it is a "0.13.1b segwit 2mb base 4mb weight" like you said or just a straight 2mb block size hard fork.

the article is not dynamic. but FIXED 2mb.
you really think core want to let the community have self control and not rely on core to spoonfeed code every few months.

Very interesting news ! First I didn't know that it was possible for an altcoin to implement a Bitcoin technological improvement that easily. Second, that's very nice of Charlie Lee, but maybe it isn't and just a way for him to retrieve a bit of awareness about Litecoin, that has been recently kicked of the light by some newcomers. Anyway, whatever the reason is, I guess that it will be something interesting to watch and to see evolve. I wonder if the Litecoin (and Vertcoin, don't forget them) communities will be so divided as people are for a reason I ignore in Bitcoin. That's for me the most important thing of those experiments : how will these respective communities react ? I hope that we will find solutions to solve that problem or at the inverse we will finally see that there is great flaws in SegWit and dig it forever. In both case the peace would brung back to Bitcoin and that's for me the most important, whoever is right.

It's not closer to activation, because the technical update requires some effort by miners. As I've read, some pools have no support for C++11 compilation yet. Judging by full node support, the 13.1 release had one of the fastest network uptakes in history.


Roger Ver is a double-tongued narcissist. His main interest is to push for mass adoption at any cost to make a quick fiat buck. It's clear that he doesn't want to be the "lone hold out", because he knows it's a futile attempt and it would only contribute to him becoming the most hated person in the Bitcoin sphere.

ya.ya.yo!

What do you mean by that? Self control on what? To my understanding when you are saying "dynamic" you mean dynamic block sizes? If it is only up to 2mb then I believe there is nothing much to manage.

I do not get what you mean by core to spoon feed code every few months by having a fixed 2mb block size. Please explain and please give a suggestion on what better way to do it so that there will be no more need to spoon feed code.

i mean instead of being dynamic where the network can grow without endless downloads by allowing the node users to manually choose their own preference in a setting and broadcast that preference in a way the network can see and grow when satisfactory consensus is reached.

core instead are 'thinking' of just having a fixed 2mb implementation. and lets say in a few years when we want to go passed 2mb we again need core to release another implementation with a higher number. endlessly needing to plead to core to release code. rather than self management and using consensus without downloads