Bitcoin Forum

With ViaBTC on board, LTC will have 100% support from miners in this activation period.


https://www.litecoinpool.org/pools

Amazing! I thought I would never live to see such a moment.

Now, the question is, can BTC ever reach enough consensus to make it happen? Is UASF really the only way? Do we really want to UASF?

There are so many questions and LTC segwit has a big direct impact in the BTC ecosystem. The price will eventually react positively to the new dimension of possibilities unlocked in LTC.

Impossible for BTC, Jihan Wu hates Core too much, it will never happen.

UASF is a User Activated Soft Fork.  Basically, it's a mandatory activation.  Therefore it could happen without 95% hashrate actually supporting SegWit (which realistically will never happen).

I did not knew that it was this easy to convince the giant Jihan Wu to Signal for Segwit and as soon as Charlie Lee requested they accepted but as that wont be that easy with bitcoin as we do not have a father figure like Charlie Lee ,if and when Satoshi comes and convinces the miners then it might be possible,if not all the egos will clash to determine who is powerful.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

So not much different than Hong Kong agreement, support for segwit in exchange for blocksize increase. Except Charlie Lee can't  backpedal on his promise with "I represented Charlie Lee - an individual, not Charlie Lee - developer", hence the success.

The miners violated the Hong Kong agreement.

i still don't really understand the benefits of segwit - taking the witness data and putting it elsewhere, as i understand it - or whatever it is that BU is porposing - with their code fails i've not looked - compared to just dynamically increasing blocksize.

oh, wait, doesn't segwit actually fix a malleability flaw?

Right and hardware wallets will run faster with SegWit also enables LN.

Nope. Right after the agreement was published, few other Core devs who weren't there said the agreement means nothing to them and won't support 2mb fork, then turned out the 'Core representation' was just a few individuals representing only themselves, rendering the entire meeting pointless. That's why some miners flipped, Jihan was pretty patient though iirc.

Whether it was incompetence and/or lack of communication between the Core team, or just a smart stunt to prevent Classic from getting a momentum - let everyone judge for themselves.

You can read about the benefits on bitcoincore.org

I do not support segwit even though it has some benefits.   It is heading down a dangerous centrally planned path.  I would much rather have bigger blocks and a diversified landscape of multiple implementations.

Segwit in itself doesn't centralize anything.

BU certainly centralizes a lot, as we see every time the majority of their nodes crash. Again.

Once LTC has 100% support and activated and the Bitcoin community saw the positive effect outweighing the negative effect of it, then probably  the Bitcoin community will come to support Segwit but I doubt that 100% will be achieved, there will be people who will always go against the majority due to ego and pride. Worst, for personal intention.

Segwit activation will happen on LTC and then... nothing will happen. LTC will continue to be as useless as it's always been and people will realise and its value will drop to its same baseline. However, what this will achieve is finally some good publicity for segwit in general since activation will be such a non-event where nothing bad happens and people will wonder what the fuss was all about. This will indirectly be good for bitcoin's segwit implementation - therefore this almost certainly will be the single most useful thing LTC has ever done. Which is a good thing since that's what altcoins were always meant to be in the first place - a playground for ideas for BTC; that got forgotten years ago and altcoins are just everyone trying to ride the next market capitalisation wave to be rich. They're all just playgrounds for pump and dump.

Anyway good news for segwit.

There are more 100 people in "core" and "core" does not have a leader that speaks for them all. So a few people from "core" can not make an agreement that all of "core" must follow.

The whole "core" violated the agreement narrative is a fallacy I wish the shills would stop spewing about.

If you spend some time investigating this, you will find plenty information about it instead of regurgitating r/btc trash.

Everyone knows this argument is bullshit on several levels.

Core does have leaders within its organization.

But, also its irrelevant who agreed to what because Core failed to raise the block limit and fought people like Gavin , Garzig , and Hearn who were trying to.

Core simply doesn't want bigger blocks and their actions prove it.  If you can't admit that, you're obviously a shill of some kind. 

At least regarding scaling nothing will happen indeed. It will only solve a problem that LTC doesn't even have... As for the rest I agree... It's a good testbed for Bitcoin.

Perhaps people will observe any issues with Segwit through Litecoin similar to a beta test seeing no issues it may move some Bitcoin users towards the Segwit side.
95% Though highly unlikely given the current Bitcoin climate but hash rate does change over time, the key note here seems to be LTC Still has its founder and can promise agreements while we have a broken community consensus and dev issues due to that we get stuck.
Passing the buck to a Testnet in litecoin ^^.

Ah, finally. Some good news that one never thought to hear. I guess since LTC is a clone of BTC, we would see the true influence of SegWit – whether it's good or bad. It was a good thing that LTC was created – to test and apply anything wanted to be implemented in Bitcoin, and to see what would happen.

UASF is not a recommended way to activate SegWit. It's not a mandatory but forced activation. It's not based on the consensus UASF has the same risk with BU activation.

Just try to activate the scalability solution through UASF is a same to put a chain on the risk to get split.

Ego and pride are a big problem in this field and if you really wanted to succeed in life you have to start accepting others ,with the developer behind litecoin asking for the request of Jihan Wu to support segwit they full accepted the fact that they would support the activation after their meetings but i never thought that they will activate it too soon.

Lol. Are you saying "Core" is not able to come to any sort of decision until every single one of that 100 (incl. spell checkers) agrees on it? Are they not able to delegate representation to the meeting? Are they capable of making any decisions at all? Didn't G Maxwell call them 'dipshits' for acting like they were representing Core team?

I don't have to investigate, I was here at that time and was watching closely, long before you created your sockpuppet account to act like a grassroots Core support.

It doesn´t seem easy that there will be the same consensus in bitcoin as there has been in litecoin. Anyway now everybody will see how Segwit works in litecoin and this will, in some way, serve as test. We will have to see what conclusions they draw, supporters and detractors.

The good news is that we're now able to see how it impacts something when it is actually implemented. Good news for the rest of the community, since we get to see how well it works. Probably works pretty damn well.

As for Bitcoin, chances are the mining cartel(s) don't want to relinquish their grip on what they have going for them and I doubt it will ever get 100%, but we can see it get pretty high, I'd bet. Maybe enough to get it into the activation range.

How is LTC useless, specially with segwit and lightning networks? Who wants to pay for stuff with bitcoin, having to wait 1 hour and 40 minutes, paying an higher fee, when you can send litecoin for a tiny transaction and really fast? Tons of places accept LTC too. For example, subscriptions to websites, VPN services, and basically everywhere where BTC is accepted in online services like that LTC is useful too.

Once BTC inevitably hits a threshold of a fee being higher than all those small payments for services, BTC will be actually useless for a ton of use cases. Slowly it will become a hodl coin and only a fool will make payments with it. And we are not anywhere close to getting consensus for any sort of capacity increases, so think before claiming LTC is useless next time.

Even though this is wonderful and all, it's not like it's going to change anything in the least. All it's going to do right now, is to let some of the people that are pumping LTC have a bit more fuel to the fire and make a little bit more money out of it as the price is going higher and higher.

What this may do is show the miners for BTC that it may be more worth it to actually go ahead and switch to Segwit signaling but I doubt it's going to sway much of an opinion over here.

UASF is the only way for us to adopt SW, please!

My guess is that Coinbase is waiting for the full implementation of segwit on litecoin before they greenlight selling it so as to create maximum buying pressure at the right time, leading to a new ATH and beyond. When the dust settles, much of the profits will come back to bitcoin sending it to the moon.

Oooh, congratulations you got an account that's been around for a long time and it was probably sold to the highest shill employer too. If you don't know how Bitcoin development works, you probably shouldn't be posting here.

Shill on my friend.

Let me help some, core = blockstream, blockstream = banksters, banksters behind SegWit, therefore SegWit bad. Oh and throw something in there about blockstream not wanting bigger blocks because they want to centralize bitcoin through lightning network and make Bitcoin a settlement layer.

That's the shill argument that r/btc has been regurgitating endlessly, right?

I agree, once the segwit news hit worldwide media, followed by the addition of coinbase, the buying force could be enough to surpass the ATH. But I reject the narrative of this being a short term thing. Think about the consequences of a BTC that is pretty much impossible to change vs the LTC + segwit + LN alternative. As long as BTC stays as it is, LTC will be the reasonable currency to use for payments while BTC will be gold 2.0.

nothing is impossible !
Am sure all consend parties who can make segwit work will have to see what kind of reception /response the transition ltc will receive and how much of a difference it makes on the speed of transactions

Looks like Segwit consensus is apparent this shows that who the miners really support
Obviously the core group has been on this field for a very long time
miners wouldn't trust their money to some buggy  software better to invest it in a much reliable people.

It's the truth.   Blockstream admits right on their own website that this is their vision for Bitcoin.  Thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a shill.

https://i.imgur.com/CXFbxc4.png

Correct, but don't forget that LTC had much lower SW acceptance threshold and once it was reached and update became inevitable people flocked to the new version.
Bitcoin would need 95% to reach the same point, which IMO is impossible in the current state. There are many people who are investing big money into their own projects that oppose SW and this money will sway people.

Nowhere in that image does it say any of that other than they are building a fast network for micropayments.

AND I'm the shill?  ::)

Yep.

If you can't put 1 and 1 together (they're working on Lightening... and they've opposed big blocks) then you're an idiot or a shill.

LTC, now $15

If segwit fails, may be back to 4$ or less
If segwit works, maybe $50 or more

And what does that mean to BTC...? What I do know is that Asicboost inventors need sleeping pills right now  ;)

Charlie Lee spent 8 hours on the Phone Promising the LTC Miners,
that when LTC blocks are 50% full, he would implement a blocksize increase.  :D

We will see if Charlie keeps his word. (Wonder if the miners got it in writing?)

But you can almost bet there was a promise that if segwit was not activated, then their would be no direct LTC/Fiat Wallet on coinbase.
(Which that is the game changer.)

LTC has no real use for segwit or LN, in fact the biggest quote is that it will allow LN hubs to exchange LTC for BTC bypassing exchanges.
The problem with this myth, is if BTC never activates segwit, no LN Hub would be able exchange BTC & LTC interchangeably.  ;)


 8)

Shill script 101, if you can’t lie your way through or twist the truth to fit your narrative, resort to name calling, insult intelligence.

This is why there is no point in having a discussion with shills.

Try again.  Here, i'll even fill out the first part of the sentence for you:

Even though Blockstream is working on the Lightening Network and favors small blocks, this isn't a settlement network because ___________________.

"They are working..". In reality it is only a single employee that is paid to develop LN. Additionally, there are several other independent group also working on LN implementations. If anyone is the idiot here, it certain isn't FriendCoin.

The only intelligent response that I could come up with is: "Fuck your mother if you want fuck." - Jihan Wu (https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/731902686379933697).

The inadequately educated loon even got some sort of badge on Reddit for whining and shilling all the time.

This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?

You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?

LN does not at all eliminate the need for bigger blocks and in fact the LN whitepaper says it will require larger blocks.    Also, LN may be extremely useful but is not a complete scaling solution because it does not always fit the needs of people who want to use Bitcoin as peer to peer cash (because you first have to open channels, probably with centralized hubs). 

So, I will ask you now:  Were you unaware of this, or shilling for Blockstream/Core ?

Not sure what you are saying, but I think anything should be supported by everyone. If it works by itself, it will be a lone monster, and people will not accept it.

It will eventually need larger blocks, but not as aggressively as with BU. I am also aware that bigger blocks alone, will never support a peer2peer cash payment network that would be able to compete with other existing payment networks that are out there. < Bigger block sizes bring more issues >

I am shilling for Bitmixer at the moment, so my opinion does not count according to non-sig members. ^smile^

I am actually not a big supporter of both of these implementations, because BU and Core both have some things I do not support, but at this stage I can see why Core might be better. 

Bitcoin can do it, if segwit will be available for bitcoin too, If SegWit will be successful in litecoin then bitcoin can try it too and we can expect a good result just like in litecoin price, from around 0.004 up to 0.01 , that is a huge gain for litecoin and i think bitcoin can gain that big percentage also, if segwit will applied to bitcoin.

well think about that, litecoin doesn't have litecoin unlimited competitors, so they have no choice, and also miners know that by supporting segwit now on litecoin the value will increase, this is a win situation for them

no miners i his right mind would say no to thisand there is also no asic boost for litecoin that i'm aware of, but with bitcoin is different the situation have muliple "antagonist" to segwit

lack of antagonists is a very good point.

I'm not giving up on you. Let me try this way:


They violated the agreement with whom?

Segwit will never have 100% support from bitcoin miners. Bitcoin users in general value decentralization and the lightning network is nothing if not centralization.

Although bitcoin unlimited has a few bugs (such as the memory leak bug that is shutting down node) it still has around 40% support from miners. You should consider that there are many more bitcoin miners when compared to those that mine litecoin so it will be much more difficult to get the 95% support that the bitcoin devs need to activate segwit. We may see a shift in the segwit support percentage depending on what happens with litecoin after they activate segwit. Why did litecoin need segwit in the first place? Aren't transactions confirmed within ~3 minutes?

What the UASF light brigade fail to recognise, or conveniently ignore, is that without a miner majority it is a User Assisted Suicide Fork. It would also create disruption to the network while the winning chain is decided on. This is why BIP148 is still in draft, and the UASF light brigade have to use their own implementation of a node, Bitcoin UASF.

LTC segwit had miner majority, and f2pool was the key player on this decision. They all agreed that UASF was a bad idea. Jihan Wu probably thought it was a waste of his resources trying to fight a litecoin UASF, so he probably decided it was a good idea to push the segwit supporters and developers over to LTC.

Looks like bitcoin core is going to become a clone of litecoin core!

While I understand what you're trying to say, that makes no sense since the litecoin changes were all ported from bitcoin core...


And you all keep missing the point that lightning network can be implemented (albeit in a reduced functionality form) even WITHOUT segwit. As this is a recurring complaint about segwit, it shows how strong the FUD is when it's actually a non-argument.

To progress segwit/LN, the changes will now have to be implemented on litecoin first, and ported back to BTC if segwit is activated on bitcoin.

You guys can't miss this:

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/856826710314045441

They are spreading fake news about exchanges halting Litecoin transactions in order to cause a shakeout before segwit gets in. This shows how much they want to buy cheap LTC before it goes to the moon after segwit activates.


Why don't you talk about CIA-backed Bitcoin XT/Classic/Unlimited? Or do the conspiracy theories only apply if they meet your agenda?

I do think that Litecoin doesnt need Segwit right now since litecoin with its current system is capable of functioning without problems. But using segwit as early as of this moment is just a preparation for whatever may come in the future and also to make litecoins value kick in the market. But with regards to bitcoin who has different situations with litecoins let us just hope that when segwit is activated bitcoin will be much better and transaction will be much faster than ever and the fees will also drop.

i am really happy that litecoin has reach 100% of segwit and its proof by the price increase suddenly and now the price is at 0.01x. i am not sure that btc can do it like what LTC do because i think bitcoin community has been split into many group and each of group can not make one vote and its not good for bitcoin community itself. we need to have one voice in bitcoin world without any of individual concern.

The only FUD here which is a non-argument is yours, by claiming "LTC is useless", and downplaying the importance of segwit in order for lightning networks to properly function. You are not looking at the big picture, if you can't see how LTC will become immensely useful as BTC fees and transaction fees go higher.

And no, LN without segwit is a centralized mess not worth a developer's time, so they will work on LTC and port their code in BTC *if BTC ever gets segwit*.

BTC will remain the biggest coin, but LTC will take second place eventually. Don't blindfold yourself and pick some.

I don't see such consensus occuring in Bitcoin, especially after how the community has engaged in a bitter battle.
At best, we can have an uneasy truce, where one side waits and watches about how SW is implemented.

Just because litecoin doesn't blow up doesn't mean people will love Segwit...  Other coins are doing proof of stake and not blowing up -- does that mean Bitcon should to?

I want the Bitcoin I signed up for that Satoshi wrote about.  Big blocks, big on chain scaling, and none of the complicated bullshit.

I am with Jonald on this one. LN selling point is, that it is OPTIONAL. In order to remain optional in the long term, blocks need to become bigger, too. Otherwise, when they become full, LN would become non-optional and become a Paypal-like vehicle.

Which is just as evil as Asicboost I guess  ;D

Best solution would be a hybrid, I guess, a Segwit/BU hybrid that has larger blocks hardwired, so that the LN supporters cannot cheat when time has come to increase block size.

I d say all this is just test ground for BTC. Sure Segwit will happen for BTC too. Do you really think there re another viable option??

This is how I see it too, if Segwit is successfull with Litecoin their supporters for Bitcoin will have a strong argument to reinforce their position.

Litecoin surging after Coinbase offers support for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L4YrGaR8E4

Time to wake up and smell the coffee: Lightning network without segwit SUCKS. Gmaxwell admited it in a recent video, he basically said working on script stuff without segwit is a waste of time.

He also said he will be happy to help in Litecoin.

You are not facing reality: Litecoin is now a better tool to work with than Bitcoin, and we can thank the miners for that.

In 2 days, Litecoin will activate segwit, and it will be the first coin to have real Lightning Network transactions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns

This is great because litecoin is finally doing what altcoins were originally incarnated for - as a playground for experimental features that eventually may or may not be used in bitcoin; not as another attempt at getting rich by being first in with the new coin (though people have all forgotten that.) Ironically this time they're providing a testing ground for a bitcoin feature and not trying out something new. Testing segwit on testnet apparently had no value with some entities... well I guess those bigger miners against segwit actually have significant litecoin investment and have seen the publicity/social effect segwit has had on it. There's no doubt gmax is willing to work on litecoin because he acknowledges the social effect of it working on litecoin adds overwhelming pressure to bitcoin.