Litecoin segwit activation. What happened?

[cryptohunter]

I was very sure that segwit and LN was great for LTC before reading all of this.

However now...

More worrying is how could one person (even the the father of LTC) force changes through? seems impossible?
 
Even if he owns millions and millions of them this is not a pos coin so that will not help him would it?

Could he be considering POS to mitigate the issue kiklo mentions with no fees to keep LTC going after pow rewards run out?


Who here can speculate how this can even be done without miners going for it?

How can anything be altered at all without consensus approval through upgrading to the new wallets?

Why does he want algo change after all the investment in scrypt asics?

I like LTC and this is interesting times. I only hope LTC is not going to get destroyed over this.

[1714809867]

1714809867

[peekabootoo]

without segwit and L.N. litecoin will slowly die anyway   ...  it is not profitable to mine, However ! it does have a secure network and it is faster than btc ( along with many others )

the could be !  saviour ! ... segwit / L.N.

Keep btc politics out.......................Let Litecoin make its own choice and walk its own path... its evolution, its advancing crypto... lets see where it takes us  

litecoin miners currently have nothing to lose ( price / ratio consistently dropping , block rewards halving, difficulty rising ) But these miners have lots to gain  

if it doesn't workout then at least its been tried, so miners move to a more profitable coin to mine .. as miners do !
the only loser if it works out is btc losing yet more market to an ALT ( or is this the problem )  

Groestlcoin has already activated Segwit , where is LN supporting them,
LN is not connecting with Groestlcoin, because all they really care about is BTC.


 

what is groestlcoin.. never heard of it and i would think many others haven't either.. however litecoin is pretty well known and used

but you did make one thing very clear to me
.......................................

all they really care about is btc             litecoin is not btc...    keep btc politics out

and another link you posted up.. with concerns..

 ( http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/02/17/charlie-lee-potentially-enforcing-litecoin-segwit-activation-bitcoiners-concerned/ )

whether charlie wants the best for ltc or has sold out .. it should be activated and seen, as its only some of the btc brigade and their influence on pools that wants it stopped.. so all they care about is btc which must mean its bad for them.

so it must be good for us the litecoin miners

litecoin ,segwit activation....    bitcoiners concerned..........  again litecoin is not bitcoin.. keep the bitcoin politics out ( are bitcoiners worried that it might work or does work, if it works its bad for btc, yet another nail ,  its not being accepted on bitcoin network so should not concern them....   and if it doesn't work then fine its of no loss to the btc crowd, having been tried and tested the litecoin miners proudly move to a profitable coin to mine, because we all know its not profitable to mine ltc. ( unless you have free electricity  ).. so its not about the money for most ltc miners, its about evolution and freedom

anything thing that maybe good ( increased user base, increased investments, market price, speed, etc )   for another coin / network is bad for btc ( btc loses market share ) ( btc bleeds ) and as you have clearly pointed out... its all about btc..

again you make your point/view very clear... its about bitcoins and nothing else..

let litecoin do its own thing, walk its own path.. let litecoin be free from btc politics, let litecoin activate segwit, lets see how it works out.... its litecoins freedom of choice...   or are btc controllers really that worried.

[NattyLiteCoin]

Are you a miner or operate a large scale mining pool? Why do you care so much? Also, Low Transaction fees is a fundamental goal crypto-currency, are you for higher transaction fees?

And I did answer question, I stated that your immediate concern of your primary argument is far-field and should carry no bearing to the immediate integration of segwit. Maybe a decade downstream or more when block rewards are 1.5265BTC / 3.125 LTC, there's a discussion, but segwit will have served its purpose (whether it succeeds or not) and there will be another evolutionary blockchain element that will fulfill shortcomings at that time.

[kiklo]

Are you a miner or operate a large scale mining pool? Why do you care so much? Also, Low Transaction fees is a fundamental goal crypto-currency, are you for higher transaction fees?

And I did answer question, I stated that your immediate concern of your primary argument is far-field and should carry no bearing to the immediate integration of segwit. Maybe a decade downstream or more when block rewards are 1.5265BTC / 3.125 LTC, there's a discussion, but segwit will have served its purpose (whether it succeeds or not) and there will be another evolutionary blockchain element that will fulfill shortcomings at that time.

Why do you want segwit & LN activated , where it can put the miners out of work and give control of the coin completely to LN.
I am against LN completely controlling a coin with an offchain fractional reserves style system, if I wanted fraud banking like the current system, I would have stayed out of crypto.

Segwit will fail and the miners will keep their jobs and we keep those asshole bankers out of crypto.

Observe 
Segwit miner support (percentage of segwit blocks signaling within the current activation period)   261 (18.91%)

Litecoin miner are changing their vote , & voting against segwit
Segwit miner support within the last 24 hours (last 576 blocks)   97 (16.84%)


 

[NattyLiteCoin]

It didn't even take a 10 second relationship with google to quell your fear of fractional reserve and the LN.

It's not possible with Lightning. For each satoshi on the Lightning network, at least one satoshi on the Bitcoin network is tied up and unspendable. Some other hypothetical off-chain systems could allow for fractional reserve. A sidechain could be fractional-reserve in the sense that there are more "bitcoins" on the sidechain than can actually be transferred back to Bitcoin proper, though typically this will mean that the sidechain's security has somehow failed.

[kiklo]

Groestlcoin has already activated Segwit , where is LN supporting them,
LN is not connecting with Groestlcoin, because all they really care about is BTC.


 

what is groestlcoin.. never heard of it and i would think many others haven't either..

LN could work with them , since they foolishly activated segwit.
Then after LN destroys them you would all know the truth.  

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/groestlcoin/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525926.0

http://www.groestlcoin.org/

http://www.groestlcoin.org/forum/

 

[kiklo]

It didn't even take a 10 second relationship with google to quell your fear of fractional reserve and the LN.

It's not possible with Lightning. For each satoshi on the Lightning network, at least one satoshi on the Bitcoin network is tied up and unspendable. Some other hypothetical off-chain systems could allow for fractional reserve. A sidechain could be fractional-reserve in the sense that there are more "bitcoins" on the sidechain than can actually be transferred back to Bitcoin proper, though typically this will mean that the sidechain's security has somehow failed.

I see the problem , you lack the ability to think for yourself and need Google.
Kind of proves
Pro Segit Supporters (No Brain whatsoever)


Theymos admits that other side chains can allow fractional reserves,
LN is only 1 software update from also allowing fractional reserves for the LN designers.
LN is a side chain , so think about it.

How do you Counterfeit LTC on LN.

Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 5000 LTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 5000 LTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 6 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 5000 LTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 5000 LTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 5000 LTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)

LTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.  

Study History, this is exactly how banking was started

LN is offchain , meaning it can never actually be a LTC, when can only truly exist ONCHAIN.

LN NOTES are only a Representation of the value of a LTC Nothing Else.

LN freezes the amount of LTC on the LTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)

And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a LTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional LTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the LTC frozen on the LTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.  
 
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.

LN          = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins =  Notes
LTC        =  Gold

Class Dismissed!    

 

How to Steal LN Funds from the LN WhitePaper itself.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51  

Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time.  If insuf-
 cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty.  There
is a trade-o  between longer timelocks and the time-value of money.  When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties

9.2    Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network.  If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain.  The re-
sult  would  be  mass  spam  on  the  bitcoin  network.   The  spam  may  delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid

9.3    Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will  be  stolen  by  the  attacker.   While  there  may  be  methods  to  mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason,  the  intermediary  nodes  will  be  at  risk  and  should  not  be  holding
a  substantial  amount  of  money  in  this  \hot  wallet."   Intermediary  nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run  and  be able to  conduct greater transaction volume due to  lower
fees.  Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
 nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine.  It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs  from  a  Funding  Transaction,  with  the  \Savings  Account"  stored
oine and requiring additional signatures from security services.

FYI:
Since you have chosen Theymos for your authority figure.
Do you agree with his idea of adding PoS to Bitcoin?  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1654457

[NattyLiteCoin]

You should pray for the LN to be implemented so you can exploit it and be rich.

Bitcoin is not PoS, nor should it ever be.

[kiklo]

You should pray for the LN to be implemented so you can exploit it and be rich.

LN will only make the Bankers that collect all of the Fees Rich.
No one else will profit enough to matter.

Bitcoin is not PoS, nor should it ever be.

Cool , you can think for yourself.  

You decided you did not agree with everything Theymos said.
How can you fault me for not agreeing with the Pro segwitters.  

Especially if you can use Logic, everything I am saying rings truthful.

 

[NattyLiteCoin]

I don't know shit about theymos other than he's polarizing and has a shit ton of Bitcoin. I do know a little about Charlie Lee, enough to know his dedication to satoshi's vision. So while there may be theoretical shortcomings of blockchain solutions that may materialize by latent bad actors, it will still be an important step to a more robust system.

[dwgscale11]

To all BU shills, for the last time, there'll be a balance with LN and litecoin transaction fees there.  Wake up.
If the litecoin fees are too low, it likely won't make sense to keep large LN channels open as that also means there's very little to be gained from routing fees. You do need a secure computer online to route LN payments through your channels, even if keeping the channels open doesn't require an online computer all the time.
When litecoin fees are high, there's a large incentive to optimize your channels and make sure they're open and active (that is routing payments) so that you can profit from offering people cheaper payments than litecoin itself. This means more and more people will pay through LN and transaction pressure on litecoin blocks will drop, causing the fee to drop too.
Between these two, there'll be a point of balance that'll be the actual fee level in litecoin. This is the natural market balance that will form.

[coinphilosopher]

LN, in my opinion, is only a micro-transaction/micropayment solution. It is the same thing like a prepaid card - only that the prepaid card issuer cannot run away with your money. At least not that easy.

So I consider LN an improvement to centralized wallet-to-wallet transactions (e.g. coinbase wallet to other coinbase wallet).

The good thing is that we have plenty of altcoins that can test different scenarios between the extremes "LN for nearly all transactions" and "only on-chain transactions".

Apart from that, Segwit would also facilitate Atomic Cross Chain transfers - no more shady exchanges (Cryptsy!) needed. That would immensely benefit all altcoins out there.

PS: Litecoin adoption seems to have stalled a bit but is pretty good (17-19%) as it's only the second activation period and there is plenty of time still.

[DarkStar1O9]

Now getting close to 60% and higher

[dinofelis]

To all BU shills, for the last time, there'll be a balance with LN and litecoin transaction fees there.  Wake up.
If the litecoin fees are too low, it likely won't make sense to keep large LN channels open as that also means there's very little to be gained from routing fees. You do need a secure computer online to route LN payments through your channels, even if keeping the channels open doesn't require an online computer all the time.
When litecoin fees are high, there's a large incentive to optimize your channels and make sure they're open and active (that is routing payments) so that you can profit from offering people cheaper payments than litecoin itself. This means more and more people will pay through LN and transaction pressure on litecoin blocks will drop, causing the fee to drop too.
Between these two, there'll be a point of balance that'll be the actual fee level in litecoin. This is the natural market balance that will form.

The problem with that is that it doesn't allow miners to squeeze all transactions in a small block, and have users fight for the little room there is to be able to move their funds.  Unlimited blocks give you the same problem, but then, unlimited blocks is just a lure to get very limited blocks and no segwit.
We all know, that something with a hard limit on its supply (like the 21 million coins in bitcoin) can give rise to very high prices.  A hard limit on the amount of transactions will lead also to very high prices (fees).  But then, there shouldn't be any other way to transact like off-chain.

To the ideal to rip off users, are:
1) small blocks
2) LN

We then have two types of industrials that get the money the users are paying: miners and LN banks.  LN banks, most probably, will be exchanges, which have big wallets and can keep open a lot of channels to their customers and between them.  They are the natural LN hubs.  Exchanges, under LN, are going to become the new Citybank.  They are already in the process of becoming regularized as a genuine bank.

The small blocks make that there are huge fees for on-chain transactions and settlements of LN channels.  LN makes that nobody complains, until most are locked up in channels to a few banking hubs.  Then, these banking hubs can increase their LN fees almost to the level of the (very high) settlement fees on chain.  You are locked in, in any case, so you better pay, because otherwise you have to pay the settlement fee, if ever your settlement transaction can get through.

Miners can determine the amount of spam needed to squeeze the on-chain blocks and fees to significant heights, and then the users are at the merci of the LN banks.  So, essentially, you open a LN link to your exchange/bank like you open a bank account, you sign a contract and all that, and then you can use it.  The settlement would also most probably happen with a lot of paperwork.  Like with a normal bank.

Miners are keeping off LN for the moment, because they don't see why they should share the lucrative squeezing of the fee market with newcomers in the field, that *don't need so much investment in ASICS*.  Miners are put on the losing side of control, because LN banks can swiftly become banks, or leave the space by simply selling off their stash.  Miners are invested longer term in the coin with their hardware.  They don't know how the distribution key of the money they suck off users will be distributed between them and the LN banks/exchanges.