Possible outcome if Bitcoin do not implement SegWit and LN

[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.

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?
 

[1714141854]

1714141854

[1714141854]

1714141854

[1714141854]

1714141854

[1714141854]

1714141854

[1714141854]

1714141854

[1714141854]

1714141854

[franky1]

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?

[pinkflower]

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.

[Sundark]

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!

[Decoded]

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.

[kiklo]

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!

[hv_]

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!

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 ...

[Jet Cash]

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.

[Red-Apple]

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

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

Don't Bet on it! 

BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!

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.

[BillyBobZorton]

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.

[_nur]

people will move to ethereum

if you do a thorough research

the industry view blockchain = ethereum

bitcoin = scam

[franky1]

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

[hv_]

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  :-)

[franky1]

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. dont talk about coinbase dont talk about bitpay, dont talk about bitpayBTCC[/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

[hv_]

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!

[franky1]

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 an 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

[deisik]

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!

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

[Variogam]

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?

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).

[Senor.Bla]

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. 

[BitcoinBarrel]

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?

+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.