Bitcoin Forum

Blockstream did not dump all of that money and time into SegWit and the LN for it not to be used. People are already talking about the possibility that SegWit/LN could be adapted to be incorporated into other Alt coins, like LiteCoin.

So let's consider this for a moment :

LiteCoin or some other Alt coin use SegWit/LN and it is a huge success as a Peer-to-Peer payment network. Bitcoin users migrate to this Alt coin, because it is cheaper and faster.

Bitcoin is left with a few hoarders that occasionally make transactions, but are mostly interested in it's store of value properties. The question is :

1. Will it still serve as a store of value, if it lost a large portion of it's active user base? < less demand = lower price >
2. Will the remaining users generate enough tx's to make it profitable for miners to continue mining in the future, when Block rewards become unprofitable and increased tx's is needed to generate enough miners fees for miners to continue mining?
3. Will Bitcoin increase the Block size, when they see this happening or will there be no need, because tx's will drop?
4. Less nodes = weaker decentralization. < People leaving >

What are your thoughts?
 

ill raise a point 5.

if having LN on bitcoin.. will people realise that their funds are locked into X week contracts with penalties for payment hopping and decide, next time they will avoid hops and instead choose hubs, which are cheaper.

making users end up all using the same hub to reduce the hop fee's. turning the hub into paypal 2.0 by being the middle counterparty signing everyone's payment.. for a fee(lower then paying multiple hop fee's).
adding to that. after broadcasting the settlement transaction. having CLTV on the confirmed settlement forcing the confirmed tx to not be spendable for a further 3-5 days to allow the hub manager 3-5 days to submit a CSV revoke code. thus making it feel even more like paypal. which in laymens: 3-5 day balance unavailable and chargebacks.

will people see the benefit of bitcoin?? when it in reality, it ends up feeling the exact same as paypal/failed fiat banking system?

ill raise a point 6.
with people locked into LN hubs.. how many people think /care about the full network, if they are no longer actually transacting daily on the mainnet.
how many full node users will decide they see no benefit of being a full node because all they ever use is the LN node.

will LN actually kill off the full node count when people dont need to use main net daily?

STOP! Ok and why do you think BTC users will migrate to LTC? And also which BTC users are we talking about? The casual buy and hold types or the hardcore darknet market user types?

Your reasoning to support your hypothesis is asinine. BTC users will not migrate to a segwit activated altcoin just because.

From technological point of view we have altcoins which are already superior to Bitcoin: they offer better scaleability, faster confirmations, are fully anonymous, are not pure POW but mix of POS/POW.
We have ASIC resistant coins which prevents coin from being centralized by huge mining farms and more. So why bitcoin is still used then?



BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!

If an altcoin were to implement the LN and Segwit, no one would move over to it. There's is too much at stake. What would be more probable is a hard fork. But then again, think about it. Why a hard fork? We can do a soft one right now.

No one will adopt another altcoin to move to LN/SW. If we wanted to, we would just do the soft fork.

I think a major point is being missed.

Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.

Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.  ;)
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity


 8)


FYI:
Don't Bet on it!  :D

So as we all know for sure: The best testnet is PRODUCTION. Only valuable reason to use Litecoin here is to find out about bugs and if it really works....

Next would be LN on Litecoin - just for fun. I'd like to see BU there as well ...

I'd like to see Bitcoin as a store of value and a hedge against inflation and banking failures. To be a store of value, it has to be easily tradeable, and I'd like to see it used as a means of payment for other virtual investments such as domain names. The improvements to core are moving Bitcoin in this direction imho.

I'd like to see a reduction in micro-payments that clutter the blockchain, faucets, ponzis and small change gambling sites don't help the growth of Bitcoin.

the developer and miners of litecoin are clearly disagreeing with you on this two points :)


i disagree, better tech can not kill bitcoin, but better tech can become as big as bitcoin but the emphasis is always on the "better" part not an illusion of being "better" that is a big difference.

As of right now the best we can do is enable segwit which has been extremely tested (as opposite to the bitcoin unlimited failure) then add in LN to scale at global levels. Everything else just doesn't work. We are lucky that BU was never accepted anywhere notable, otherwise we would have 2 bitcoin chains by now.

people will move to ethereum

if you do a thorough research

the industry view blockchain = ethereum

bitcoin = scam

things would change if..

the big 12 exchanges.
and also the merchant tools (bitpay/coinbase) both started pushing for another currency.

EG the 300,000 merchants accepting bitcoin, started accepting another coin and not advertising bitcoin acceptance.
'value' in bitcoin would decline

Guess what ?   Exactly matches plans of Bilderberg group  :-)

shhhh
rule one of barry silbert investment company DCG
dont talk about bilderberg aka satoshi roundtable 2017

dont talk about blockstream (http://dcg.co/network/#b). dont talk about coinbase (http://dcg.co/network/#c) dont talk about bitpay (http://dcg.co/network/#b), dont talk about bitpay (http://dcg.co/network/#b)BTCC[/url] or the BTCC ceo's brother(charlie lee DoE at coinbase and creator of litecoin)

..
i now predict the usual troll storm incoming to defend blockstream and barry silbert aka bilderberg organisers

The blue print for our status in bitcoin is here

'Divide and Conquer: The Globalist Pathway to New World Order Tyranny'

+ Control the money on earth.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/divide-and-conquer-the-globalist-pathway-to-new-world-order-tyranny-from-a-geopolitics-perspective/5483935

To all users and mods -> Avoid this process of division by any means!

the problem with full avoidance of 'divide and conquer' leaves people in a 'lay down and surrender'

what we should be doing however is getting back to bitcoins ethos of 2009-2013 diverse consensus.
and not treating the corporate centralists as the leaders of bitcoin.

we should be thinking about NODES (users) set the rules via consensus.. not devs
where by pools, if they want their rewards. they collate the data into blocks that fit the nodes consensus rules. not by rules devs want pools to adopt

recognise that any dev witholding onchain growth, as being not a good dev. and try to find a way to ensure NODES get to independantly change their settings without dev spoon feeding.

bitcoin needs to get to a point that devs are needed less and less because bitcoin can function alone..and users can change settings without devs.
(imagine a world where to change a font in microsoft word you had to ask a dev for a patch... bad)
(imagine a world where to change a font in microsoft word users just change a font. users can request devs add more fonts to the default list in the next update. but not require devs to control the fonts)
 not aiming for a point of needing devs more and more because bitcoin cant live without them

It is not that the better tech can't kill Bitcoin

The main issue is that future Bitcoin adoption can be heavily slowed by the limitations that SegWit and Lightning Network are set to lift, i.e. due to internal factors. So all those people that could potentially become Bitcoin users will likely refrain from using Bitcoin and start using something else. As you can see, this is not even the question of more advanced currencies as such. But if it ever comes to that (to the point where Bitcoin becomes unusable), this is when the better tech might make all the difference

Is it ever possible to have only LN Bitcoins without a link to your Bitcoins stored on a mainet ? I doubt it, and ever if it is possible, it would be not much different from Bitcoin IOUs inside exchanges thus not very appealing to users. This is why I believe LN cannot solve the scaling problem at all, and no much more users could ever use Bitcoin with LN compared to today - because every user need mainnet transactions and there is no more space left for more users already (SegWit could increase number of mainnet transactions by about +50%, but thats it). Current average Bitcoin user already using Bitcoin very little, like sending about 1 transaction weekly on mainet only (250 K txs daily * 7 days  = 1,75 M users), you cant reduce this number much more for mainnet transactions space allowing more Bitcoin users (actually if you trust blockchain.info numbers about almost 10M wallets, you could estimate average user using just one tx per month on mainet only already!).

So with or without LN, I believe Bitcoin going to keep about current userbase numbers, so the Bitcoin value could keep similar value in the future as is today (between $100 and $2000 because of speculation).

So Bitcoin could finally end up as Gold 2.0. Let me explain.
Bitcoin would be like Gold the real thing. The real value. But people would use the other solutions that are quicker and easier to handle These would be good enough for everyday use. People anyway never understood the real benefits of Bitcoin, so the masses would not mined centralization and not really owning their money. 

+1 I'll say it once and I'll say it again... If Bitcoin is "Broken" then why haven't the "fixes" been implemented in a brand new Alt-Coin?

The fixes must not be necessary. Looks to be more of a centralization effort to control Bitcoin.

If this has to happen for people to reach consensus on matters, then so be it. Whatever they decide on now, will definitely have a impact

in the future. We have a lot of competition from ETH and Hyperledger and they are just waiting for us to drop the ball. If you think

Bitcoin will retain their "top spot" forever, you will lose a lot of money. If Bitcoin do not scale, with the needs of it's users, then it will

cut it's own throat and die a slow death.  ::)

You know, I would rather be pre-emtive and forward thinking, to be prepared for whatever might happen than being a sheep and being close-minded to the possibility that things like this might just happen. LiteCoin would be the obvious choice for most people, because it has been around for many years and has shown that it can step up to take Bitcoins place.

LiteCoin has a bigger Coin cap and it is faster too, so watch this space in the future. ^smile^

https://news.bitcoin.com/segwit-litecoin-soft-fork-road/

Thats a good point. So would it be good to assume that the LTC developers and the founder, Charlie Lee are doing this only to spite the warring tribes of BTC? Politics without doubt is the main cause why segwit is not activated. Maybe the Bitcoin maximalists could get a thing or 2 from the LTC community.

How's that possible?

Okay, we seem to already agreed that Litecoin has 4 times the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, so it may not in fact need SegWit. But how does it make LN irrelevant for Litecoin? If we put aside assumptions that Litecoin folks aim at integrating LN for the sole purpose of irritating and bugging the Bitcoin gang, why are they going to adopt Lightning Network after all? As I understand it, LN would make instant (truly instant) transactions possible, and the lack of these seems to be one the major barriers on the way of using cryptocurrencies in real life for everyday expenses (apart from transacting online)

Not everyone seem to think that "instant" transactions is the way to go. Some people would gladly sit on their hoard, like a Hen on

her egg. The scaling issues is not a major barrier at the moment, because we still have some room to breath, but I presume that this

will not stay like this for long. We will in future be forced to make a decision and I think 2017 will be the year for that.  ???

Obviously, miners can't ever consider it as the "way to go"

Since they might be at the shit end of the stick losing the fees that won't come in to them if folks start creating LN channels for offchain transactions. But wouldn't that be in fact beneficial for end-users who will likely pay "lower fees" or no fees at all with "faster transfers"? Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but mining difficulty is adjustable in Litecoin in the same way as in Bitcoin, so miners are de facto out of the question entirely since there will always be enough miners for any given difficulty. Therefore, how can LN possibly have no use in Litecoin?

imagine it this way.

you have a plane that can travel around the world in 10 minutes for just 2 cents.

then you have a company that wants to install teleporters in every house
they advertise that the data stream can hop between teleporters. and if someone teleported and it hopped via your teleporter you get paid

seems great right. travel around the world in seconds. and get paid if someone else teleported via you.. wow amazing.. (not quite)

---

the teleporter company bought up a group of plane engineers, and got them to engineer a teleporter.
now they want to tell the world that planes cant cope.
no more planes will be build and the ticket price of a plane should rise to kill off demand for a seat on the plane.

---

here is the picture though
for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E via the data streams

so A needs to pay B. and pay C and pay D to ensure A reaches E

costing A 4 hops

so what A does instead is find hub X which has multiple data streams to everyone.
now A can travel to E just by paying X twice
a-> X
X-> e

much cheaper than 4 fee's of the hop concept
a->b
b->c
c->d
d->e

but by going through a hub instead of hops, now e,d,c,b wont get paid...
and thats where it falls apart.

the fake promotional sales pitch to get B,C,D,E to promote LN.. but ultimately B,C,D,E wont get paid when it actually plays out in reality, because everyone will want to save money and use hubs instead..

and thats the agenda. blockstream need LN for blockstream to be the hub to gathr fee's for their $90m investors

---

another thing..

before using the teleporter A needs to sign a contract. handing his life to X and enters the teleport buffer
if something goes wrong and say X refuses to hop.. A loses his life (because E caused a chain reaction that made X lose his life. which made A want to get out which forced X to revoke A's life to compensate X for the loss against E)

secondly if A decides he would rather not use a teleporter and tries getting out of the buffer early.
A is then in limbo for 3-5 days dematerialising and cant move... and if X objects to A leaving A loses his life

---

yes i have used a sci-fi analogy of how it LN works but if i was to use the more realistic bank2.0 analogy, the centralists would should hell fire comparing their commercial tool to a bank

I don't see any logic behind your conclusion

If E, D, C, B don't get paid and they fall off (let's assume that), then how can the transaction still find its cheap way from A to E through X? It seems that you are again bringing forth self-contradictory claims. You say that E doesn't get paid and at the same time you claim that the transaction in question will still be delivered to it. If it can't be delivered to E (which seems logical because it doesn't get paid as you claim), then there is no LN channel in the first place and there is nothing to talk about, i.e. no subject for discussion


As I got it from the LN papers, A will just get back

1. LN contract can expire. where the locktime is only say 2 weeks. people decide to not extend the contract but start a new contract connecting to a hub.

2. this is what blockstream are hoping for. so this is where they become X (a hub)

A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

instead of
A-B-C-D-E



contracts end. then just not reset up the hop method. people end up entering hub method


nope, because there is an attack vector. (i just didnt want to waffle the finer details)
if X refused to trade..
A would broadcast an old tx.. because X is refusing..
because E is angry that X refused. E request X to broadcast so that E can escape.
E then revokes X out of spite... for causing tension.
now all X can do is take frustration out on A..

other attack vectors are that X can cause such tension he makes the other (a,b,c,d) broadcast first then X can revoke ALL their tx's

I don't see what's wrong with that?

Quite naturally, A<->X<->E looks more efficient than longer chains (A-B-C-D-E) and likely cheaper in terms of fees, but isn't that the advantage of LN, not its drawback as you seem to imply? After all, this is a free market, and if folks see ways for "more" instant and cheaper transactions, I don't see any logic behind you claiming to the contrary. For example, why should we care about miners who are not able to get profits from mining and thus have to leave the scene? With LN, it is basically along the same lines


And what is your point?

yes hubs are cheaper than hops.
im pointing out that all the r/bitcoin centralist blockstream defenders. are being sheep herded into thinking they can each get rich if they promote LN..
im pointing out they each wont.. only the hubs will.


the point is. LN is promoted to give people income.. reality they wont get it..
the point is. LN promoted as faster... but then tying them into permissioned contracts with fund locks and chargebacks.. making it no better than paypal2.0

now understand this. LN has a niche for certain businesses.. such as day traders, faucet raiders, adsense.
BUT
its should be considered a side voluntary service for certain niche users.
NOT
to be considered as the end goal for bitcoin where everyone needs to use LN due to how devs have halted and crippled any onchain growth purely to force users into LN contracts.

LN is just paypal2.0/visa2.0

remember bitcoin is suppose to be the permission-less open zero barrier of entry .. not visa2.0 with penalties and chargebacks(csv revokes)

Youa re going to far. Whatever technological revolution is implemented in any altcoin, Bitcoin will never but never get surpassed by this.