Possible outcome if Bitcoin do not implement SegWit and LN

[Kprawn]

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. 

[1715063574]

1715063574

[1715063574]

1715063574

[1715063574]

1715063574

[1715063574]

1715063574

[Kakmakr]

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.
 

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.

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/

[pinkflower]

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


 


FYI:
Don't Bet on it! 

BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!

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.

[deisik]

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

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)

[Kprawn]

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

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. 

[deisik]

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

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

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?

[franky1]

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)

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

[deisik]

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

much cheaper than 4 times
a->b
b->c
c->d
d->e

but now e,d,c,b wont get paid...
and thats where it falls apart

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

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)

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

[franky1]

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

much cheaper than 4 times
a->b
b->c
c->d
d->e

but now e,d,c,b wont get paid...
and thats where it falls apart

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?

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

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

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

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)

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

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

[deisik]

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

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

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

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

And what is your point?

[franky1]

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

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?

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.

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

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)

[BiTZeD]

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