SegWit predictions?

[MiBambino]

What factors influence segwits activation? honestly i've been trading bitcoin and litecoin for about 4 months, but only till a few days ago i wanted to become more a part of this forum, yet i don't quite understand what it is that will make or break segwit, and more importantly litecoins segwit activation. I'm most interested in litecoin as i feel like this coin could still grow a lot. I feel like litecoin getting a 500% increase (25$) is a lot more realistic than bitcoin getting a 500% increase (6000$). A segwit activation could IMO really improve the coins acceptancy and adoption, and therefore it's value

[e-coinomist]

Litecoin makes a good hedge against any imaginable blockchain failures. No coincidence professional miners employ some scrypt asics, too.
Aren't there many more LTC-alike coin clones out there? Segwit beeing the new Azure like somebody jokingly twittered

[Scott J]

Segwit beeing the new Azure like somebody jokingly twittered

That's a good analogy actually 

SegWit is almost a no-brainer - it should be activated. Politics has got in the way, however.

[housebtc]

Litecoin has no reason to implement segwit, they don't have full blocks.
Hell the last block had 1 TX in it.

I have said this before that trying to but litecoin in Bitcoin shoe is very wrong, it doesn't have bitcoin trade volume non transaction issue, implementing SegWit on Litecoin doesn't make sense to me

[kiklo]

What factors influence segwits activation? honestly i've been trading bitcoin and litecoin for about 4 months, but only till a few days ago i wanted to become more a part of this forum, yet i don't quite understand what it is that will make or break segwit, and more importantly litecoins segwit activation. I'm most interested in litecoin as i feel like this coin could still grow a lot. I feel like litecoin getting a 500% increase (25$) is a lot more realistic than bitcoin getting a 500% increase (6000$). A segwit activation could IMO really improve the coins acceptancy and adoption, and therefore it's value

Users are too blind to realize segwit is a takeover of BTC by Blockstream & Bankers with Offchain Transactions that deprive the miners of the needed transaction fees to stay economically solvent.

Charlie Lee , litcoin dev was paid off by blockstream to get segwit added to try and force BTC to add it.

Mining communities of BTC & LTC are refusing to activate segwit.

Neither sewit activation for BTC or LTC has achieved over 35%.

BTU has a higher % than segwit and can activate at 55% instead of the 95% required by segwit on BTC.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

https://coin.dance/blocks

 

FYI:

Segwit is a waste of time!

LTC already has 4X the Transaction Capacity of BTC.

BTC core pushed it as a solution to BTC unconfirmed transactions problems,
by adding segwit they make it easier to run their Offchain Lightening Network (Which is nothing but Banking & Fractional Reserves entering Crypto.)
BTC core wants to use LN to take control of the BTC network , by locking up the majority of BTC Forever.

LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC 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 BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC 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
BTC        =  Gold

 

[Red-Apple]

Litecoin has no reason to implement segwit, they don't have full blocks.

well as far as i know SegWit is not mainly about increasing block sizes so it is not really about full blocks and as litecoin dev adopted it for other features on top of it. it is also about "transaction malleability"
read this, it can explain it better than i do: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
https://www.litecoinpool.org/news?id=70

Hell the last block had 1 TX in it.

this happens to bitcoin too. i may be wrong since i don't know how big is litecoin mempool, but it can happen to any coin that is similar to bitcoin.
there is nothing stopping miners from mining a perfectly fine block with only 1 TX (the coinbase transaction) in it.

[dfd1]

Segwit allow cross blockchain atomic swaps, so trading without trusting your coins to exchange possible.  SegWit allow off chain transactions, so private transactions without coinmixers possible. SegWit allow instant transactions and allow more transactions per second. No matter how good or bad today implementation is, SegWit is a step in the right way. Network should progress,  anonymity matters, big tps and instant transactions is a must. Once litecoin adopts segwit all shitcoins become obsolete, so no wonder miners trying to derail voting and spread FUD here and there.

[kiklo]

Segwit allow cross blockchain atomic swaps, so trading without trusting your coins to exchange possible.  SegWit allow off chain transactions, so private transactions without coinmixers possible. SegWit allow instant transactions and allow more transactions per second. No matter how good or bad today implementation is, SegWit is a step in the right way. Network should progress,  anonymity matters, big tps and instant transactions is a must. Once litecoin adopts segwit all shitcoins become obsolete, so no wonder miners trying to derail voting and spread FUD here and there.

You are confusing Segwit with LN,  

Segwit only allows the TIME LOCKING of BTC onchain.

LN does a counterfeit offchain transactions, because if those time locks fail, you are trading fake coins.  
Which you only learn it is fake, if you try cashing out on the TRUE ONLINE CHAIN.


 

[dfd1]

Segwit allow cross blockchain atomic swaps, so trading without trusting your coins to exchange possible.  SegWit allow off chain transactions, so private transactions without coinmixers possible. SegWit allow instant transactions and allow more transactions per second. No matter how good or bad today implementation is, SegWit is a step in the right way. Network should progress,  anonymity matters, big tps and instant transactions is a must. Once litecoin adopts segwit all shitcoins become obsolete, so no wonder miners trying to derail voting and spread FUD here and there.

You are confusing Segwit with LN,  

Segwit only allows the TIME LOCKING of BTC onchain.

LN does a counterfeit offchain transactions, because if those time locks fail, you are trading fake coins.  
Which you only learn it is fake, if you try cashing out on the TRUE ONLINE CHAIN.


 

Well, SegWit allow Lightning Networks. Without SegWit LN probably will not happen. And what does it mean IF those time locks fail? Why should time locks fail, because of what? If you think there can be problem with it - please show it on test network.
If bitcoin splits on two hundred altcoins, if artificial intelligence robots attack us, if government builds quantum supercomputer to hack dogecoin there definitely will be some problems with cashing out too. That's very unlikely, though.

[kiklo]

Segwit allow cross blockchain atomic swaps, so trading without trusting your coins to exchange possible.  SegWit allow off chain transactions, so private transactions without coinmixers possible. SegWit allow instant transactions and allow more transactions per second. No matter how good or bad today implementation is, SegWit is a step in the right way. Network should progress,  anonymity matters, big tps and instant transactions is a must. Once litecoin adopts segwit all shitcoins become obsolete, so no wonder miners trying to derail voting and spread FUD here and there.

You are confusing Segwit with LN,  

Segwit only allows the TIME LOCKING of BTC onchain.

LN does a counterfeit offchain transactions, because if those time locks fail, you are trading fake coins.  
Which you only learn it is fake, if you try cashing out on the TRUE ONLINE CHAIN.


 

Well, SegWit allow Lightning Networks. Without SegWit LN probably will not happen. And what does it mean IF those time locks fail? Why should time locks fail, because of what? If you think there can be problem with it - please show it on test network.
If bitcoin splits on two hundred altcoins, if artificial intelligence robots attack us, if government builds quantum supercomputer to hack dogecoin there definitely will be some problems with cashing out too. That's very unlikely, though.

Test Net is unnecessary just read the LN whitepaper.
Here is the Short version.

So what secures the LN network then?

Description : From Bitcoin Wiki. 
Lightning Network is a proposed implementation of Hashed Timelock Contracts (HTLCs) with bi-directional payment channels which allows payments to be securely routed across multiple peer-to-peer payment channels.Dec 22, 2016

Segwit supporters say :
It relies on the underlying blockchain, be it Bitcoin’s or otherwise, for its security.
In the case of Bitcoin, it uses the underlying proof-of-work algorithm that secures the entire network to secure

But I will tell you the truth, LN Security Relies only on : proposed implementation of Hashed Timelock Contracts (HTLCs)
Time Locks are what you are relying on for Security in LN.

Examples: When the Time Locks expire your BTC can be stolen

My fear with LN is rather the opposite: that propagating "waves of panic" will overwhelm the block chain with transactions, because the amount of transactions pending on the LN network can in principle be orders of magnitude larger than what a block chain can handle (that's its main idea !).  So if a block chain can handle, say, 100 000 transactions per hour, and the LN network has 10 million transactions pending in 10 minutes, and there's a panic wave going through the network, those 10 million transactions will need to go on-chain which will create a backlog of 100 hours, often passing the safety time limit of regularisation, and huge opportunities to scam.

Your fears are confirmed , article from  Jul 5, 201612:28 PM EST by Kyle Torpey
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127/

And also what would happen in this scenario if the locks on the main chain expire before the tx from LN can be pushed back to the main chain, it would be a bit like double spending issue no ?

@IadixDev,
Nice,  you see the problems with LN also. 


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.

[gredisgold88]

yes, I hope you're right. litecoin also still attract traders and users, hopefully litecoin price will rise to $ 25. but this seems like an own difficulties if litecoin will experience climbing in price due to the competition with a new ico convince users with better technology, at least this is a big expectation, the price litecoin will experience significant climbing.

[Qartersa]

I don't think segwit will make it to the deadline. The number of users did not even reach a significant number that we could say that we are near the required number. Unlike Bitcoin Unlimited, it quickly gained popularity due to the backing of the largest mining pool, Antpool. So I guess, we might not see the effects of segwit.

[XbladeX]

Nobody looked at LN like alts today ?
Miners are you blind ? People use ETH/Dash/Doge for low fees and speed.
How much blinded have to be think that BTC dominance will stay like it is with out change.
Users use LN today it is named altcoins.


I and hard fork and sewgit on other side BU and we will se who will win race.
Price factor is demand we will see what was more needed in real world.
Bitcoin is not for Chinse miners... come on.

[Ayers]

Nobody looked at LN like alts today ?
Miners are you blind ? People use ETH/Dash/Doge for low fees and speed.
How much blinded have to be think that BTC dominance will stay like it is with out change.
Users use LN today it is named altcoins.

that wuld be sidechain, LN is not sidechain, and not really like altcoin imho, it's more centralized and can cost more fee to mienrs, from what i've heard it's the reaosn why miners don't wnat segwit and LN, because if they activate segwit the LN will come together

[XbladeX]

***
that wuld be sidechain, LN is not sidechain, and not really like altcoin imho, it's more centralized and can cost more fee to mienrs, from what i've heard it's the reaosn why miners don't wnat segwit and LN, because if they activate segwit the LN will come together

Do you remember those talks BTC is better becouse its paypal killer "low fees"...
Save unbanked africa are lol now with fees like 1$ this is joke. (their earn daily 1$ sometimes)
BTC was good becouse people could transact was cheapr than banks while now with HIGH fees
BTC will lose market demand and that is directly lower price on market and higher price of alts
alts will have huge demand becouse there is low cost fee demand.
I don't know how far have to fee drop but looks BTC at 1000$ is capped in usage.
If people can not use BTC fees time they will use alts and that will cause BTC miners lose money indirectly.
At end they will lose more cash becouse of BTC price crash, than from fees.

[dfd1]

My fear with LN is rather the opposite: that propagating "waves of panic" will overwhelm the block chain with transactions, because the amount of transactions pending on the LN network can in principle be orders of magnitude larger than what a block chain can handle (that's its main idea !).  So if a block chain can handle, say, 100 000 transactions per hour, and the LN network has 10 million transactions pending in 10 minutes, and there's a panic wave going through the network, those 10 million transactions will need to go on-chain which will create a backlog of 100 hours, often passing the safety time limit of regularisation, and huge opportunities to scam.

Pending transactions are a problem, but we should have clear scenario when coins lost or stolen, to veto SegWit. Do you have some idea how LN node can run and hide with other people coins? Transactions delay somehow a normal thing today, and people suddenly don't care and keep buying bitcoin, and I don't know why they do it, to be honest.
LN provide some radical potential improvement for scalability, if some problem will be found it will just provide an opportunity to find a way to fix it, as always. Not first time when bitcoin network fucked up and need to be fixed, and not the last time.
Potential progress is a huge network with high speed transactions and huge volume, potential loss - delayed transactions IF something goes wrong. Worth to throw a ball.

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

It can be done, well, when writing wallet and Lightning Network applications. Why not?

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

Spam is a problem, but not a critical problem. Right now bitcoin suffer from transaction delays.
Can coins be lost forever?

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.

Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. And this is the nature of bitcoin. Exchanges can be cracked, coins can be lost, no way to fix it without centralization. Probably some multisig solution can be developed for LN nodes to reduce the risk, or not, I don't care. It's just a normal thing, like risking your coins for online staking in POS coins.

Without LN or similar solution decentralized bitcoin network can't scale. Either we will have some "master nodes" with huge storage to keep block chain with 1gb average block (it's still possible and network will run fine) and SPV wallets for users, or LN.

[andron8383]

***

Then those people don't need to use Bitcoin but an altcoin. Think of it as everyone in the world using gold, but Bitcoin has this extremely large security hashrate, you don't need that security for a $1 transfer, just use an alt.
[/quote]

When BTC get rid off so low transaction what will make BTC  so great that you will pay like 5$ fee for transfer 1000$ in savings.
Gold can be used as jewery have unique physical properties while BTC have... hashrate ?
But BTC hash-rate is coming from BTC price directly once price falls  hash-rate is dropping too.
So BTC is loosing its characteristics while gold never.

[e-coinomist]

FYI:

Segwit is a waste of time!

LTC already has 4X the Transaction Capacity of BTC.

That would be the quick fix, reducing BTC's timing onto 5 minutes and maybe doubling blocksize onto 2mb, there 4X too.
But that would become a loosing battle, years forwards these numbers would be fitting to tight again.