Bitcoin scaling: Looks like all roads lead to LTC

[thejaytiesto]

If there is a contentious HF and Jihad Wu actually pushes with his hashrate to force it: big price crash and BTC refugees go to alts = LTC will benefit

If miners keep blocking progress (segwit which enables proper LN etc etc) Bitcoin will never scale and will remain as immutable gold: people will search for fast velocity alts = LTC will benefit

If segwit is forced via UASF this will cause big tensions because like it or not it's a bit of a controversial feature and may cause price crashes, aggressive miners etc = LTC will benefit

If somehow BUcoin wins and there's a PoW change to defend from it creating a clusterfuck of a situation where a lot of innocent miners go out of business = LTC will benefit

Once LTC gets segwit, all LN development will move there because who wants to develop under crippled mode (no segwit) when you have LTC, which is a BTC clone which actually scales and has the network effect of the original alt?
And also has a chinese developer which is very diplomatic and will find agreements with miners?

The ideal outcome of all of this is of course BTC getting segwit via miners agreeing to 95% signaling but let's be realistic, this will never happen.

So the second best outcome looks like BTC should remain immutable hodl coin used as gold, while LTC is a more malleable with actual possible agreements thanks to its 75% activation threshold which is about to deliver us segwit without any clusterfucks and internal war, which means LN would kick in in full force, which means LTC would be used as a coin for minor transactions while BTC remains the gold of crypto.

Discuss.

[1715525571]

1715525571

[amacar2]

So the second best outcome looks like BTC should remain immutable hodl coin used as gold, while LTC is a more malleable with actual possible agreements thanks to its 75% activation threshold which is about to deliver us segwit without any clusterfucks and internal war, which means LN would kick in in full force, which means LTC would be used as a coin for minor transactions while BTC remains the gold of crypto.

Last 24 hours: 69.0% support for segwit in litecoin 
Source: http://litecoin-segwit.info/

Looks like we gonna get segwit activated on litecoin within end of this week, i think there will be another bullish run on litecoin after this activation. I have placed few long position at 0.008BTC on LTC hope it will give me some good profit 

[manselr]

Overall agree with all of your points, indeed it's spot on.

ANYTHING that is not 95% hashrate agreement will create big price fluctuations due uncertainty.

So it's best that it stays as it is. Satoshi designed bitcoin so its insanely hard to change.

We all BTC holders would benefit more if it stays as it is rather than destroying network effect.

I wouldn't mind to see LTC as the scaling coin since it's basically a bitcoin clone.

[bitjoin]

LTC has its biggest purpose to date in getting segwit on bitcoin. The BU team will be trying hard to stop this im guessing, they should just give up now though.

[alyssa85]

Once LTC gets segwit, all LN development will move there because who wants to develop under crippled mode (no segwit) when you have LTC, which is a BTC clone which actually scales and has the network effect of the original alt?

There is only one problem with your scenario - hardly anyone uses Litcoin. In the last 24 hours were only 6,798 litcoin transactions. see

https://bitinfocharts.com/

Why on earth would all the LN development move to a coin nobody uses, and hence no fee profit can be made for it because nobody uses it?

As things stand only ETh is a possible threat to BTc, because people are using it (there were about 87,000 transactions in the last 24 hours on ETH)

[franky1]

bu jihan wont push it..
there are several different implementations of dynamics.. if all you can see is band camp drama of control. then you have already lost the point of bitcoins existence of a diverse decentralised network of independent nodes
get out of the reddit cabin fever you have sat yourself in

miners are not blocking progress, they just dont like segwit.. maybe core need to stop circle jerking themselves and deal with the problems and remake a solution people will like.
a no vote is not a threat, its a "sorry but you need to try again with something a lil different"

segwit forced due to UASF?? seriously!! segwit invented UASF, .. if segwit doesnt get the vote they should not point fingers outwards but instead think about what is missing within core and why it was not unanimous..
..."forced via UASF".. im laughing and you trying to make it sound like core are victims and anyone not core are invadors.
WAKE UP

If somehow BU wins via consensus then the community have reached a consensus..
If somehow segwit wins via consensus then the community have reached a consensus.. although segwit INTENTIONALLY bypassed consensus hoping to back door it in without community choice.

"and there's a PoW change to defend". seriously!!.. if you already think core own bitcoin .. then bitcoins decentralised premiss is already null and void and all u have is a tier netword of distribution.. not decentralisation
WAKE UP

i cant beleive how many people think that core should own, control and be the only codebase of bitcoin..

bitcoin should not be FIAT. bitcoin is suppose to be the opposite of the bankers fiat mindset. so stop tying to turn bitcoin into a controlled curency by a single team

wake up

[gentlemand]

As LTC is a BTC clone and all that entails - limited number of coins, PoW, non disgusting launch, I don't really see why anyone would bother sticking with Bitcoin if Litecoin becomes BTC with knobs on.

As it's currently pretty much unused at the moment, the increased usage from all the extra applications would concurrently increase value. It would attract many more developers than it has right now and all of the merchant/commercial projects on the backburner because of Bitcoin's limitations would probably roll out there instead.

Segwit would enable many possibilities that would be denied Bitcoin. Fees would be far lower. Why would someone want to flit between that and creaky old BTC? There's no particular reason other than sentimentality.

[franky1]

Once LTC gets segwit, all LN development will move there because who wants to develop under crippled mode (no segwit) when you have LTC, which is a BTC clone which actually scales and has the network effect of the original alt?

There is only one problem with your scenario - hardly anyone uses Litcoin. In the last 24 hours were only 6,798 litcoin transactions. see

https://bitinfocharts.com/

Why on earth would all the LN development move to a coin nobody uses, and hence no fee profit can be made for it because nobody uses it?

As things stand only ETh is a possible threat to BTc, because people are using it (there were about 87,000 transactions in the last 24 hours on ETH)

though i dont care for LTC or ETH

LTC would gain traction due to the centralists of the DCG
here is a list of those prominent services in DCG portfolio that have alot of sway of the whole crypt-onomy
-blockstream
-btcc(litecoin inventors brother)
-bitpay
-bitpesa
-changtip
-coinbase(litecoin inventor)
-coindesk (puppetmaster of propaganda owned by DCG)
-gyft
-kraken
-purse
-shapeshift
-xapo

plus many more

imagine if all of them (shh they are already becoming) start being LTC friendly. ETH wont stand a chance with being 'merchants accept' available

[Carlton Banks]

As LTC is a BTC clone and all that entails - limited number of coins, PoW, non disgusting launch, I don't really see why anyone would bother sticking with Bitcoin if Litecoin becomes BTC with knobs on.

As it's currently pretty much unused at the moment, the increased usage from all the extra applications would concurrently increase value. It would attract many more developers than it has right now and all of the merchant/commercial projects on the backburner because of Bitcoin's limitations would probably roll out there instead.

Segwit would enable many possibilities that would be denied Bitcoin. Fees would be far lower. Why would someone want to flit between that and creaky old BTC? There's no particular reason other than sentimentality.

So Litecoin is as intensely developed, has as many expert coders, and as many expert eyes on the differences in the codebase (between Litecoin and Bitcoin)?


Who really knows how "creaky" Litecoin actually is, until they find out through use. Litecoin has the potential to be everything you say. But it's not actually any of things you say, and neither is Bitcoin. You've got some very subtle biases, as usual.

[alyssa85]

Once LTC gets segwit, all LN development will move there because who wants to develop under crippled mode (no segwit) when you have LTC, which is a BTC clone which actually scales and has the network effect of the original alt?

There is only one problem with your scenario - hardly anyone uses Litcoin. In the last 24 hours were only 6,798 litcoin transactions. see

https://bitinfocharts.com/

Why on earth would all the LN development move to a coin nobody uses, and hence no fee profit can be made for it because nobody uses it?

As things stand only ETh is a possible threat to BTc, because people are using it (there were about 87,000 transactions in the last 24 hours on ETH)

though i dont care for LTC or ETH

LTC would gain traction due to the centralists of the DCG
here is a list of those prominent services in DCG portfolio that have alot of sway of the whole crypt-onomy
-blockstream
-btcc(litecoin inventors brother)
-bitpay
-bitpesa
-changtip
-coinbase(litecoin inventor)
-coindesk (puppetmaster of propaganda owned by DCG)
-gyft
-kraken
-purse
-shapeshift
-xapo

plus many more

imagine if all of them (shh they are already becoming) start being LTC friendly. ETH wont stand a chance with being 'merchants accept' available

Most of those services you have quoted have hedged their bets and all have ETH enabled (Coinbase is a huge ETH fan, Kraken, shapeshift etc all have ETH). So if they feature both ETH and LTC, then again, it comes down to users, and litcoin has very few.

[franky1]

Most of those services you have quoted have hedged their bets and all have ETH enabled (Coinbase is a huge ETH fan, Kraken, shapeshift etc all have ETH). So if they feature both ETH and LTC, then again, it comes down to users, and litcoin has very few.

yes but coinbase is more LTC due to charlie lee.
knowing coinbase has huge 'merchant acceptance' i can easily see LTC getting more attention than eth when it comes to 'normal users spending'..

Eth will just remain as the board room 'contracts' / derivatives utility not the real world normal user spend stuff.. ETH is too complex for 'normal users'

[cellard]

As LTC is a BTC clone and all that entails - limited number of coins, PoW, non disgusting launch, I don't really see why anyone would bother sticking with Bitcoin if Litecoin becomes BTC with knobs on.

As it's currently pretty much unused at the moment, the increased usage from all the extra applications would concurrently increase value. It would attract many more developers than it has right now and all of the merchant/commercial projects on the backburner because of Bitcoin's limitations would probably roll out there instead.

Segwit would enable many possibilities that would be denied Bitcoin. Fees would be far lower. Why would someone want to flit between that and creaky old BTC? There's no particular reason other than sentimentality.

LTC is nothing without BTC, because BTC developers are the best and LTC depends on BTC developers.

But the good point of LTC is precisely that it is a no-bullshit original clone.

I don't see why LTC can't go back to $50+ since BTC is trapped in this situation where it refuses to change.

BTC provides all the hard work of the code and stability as gold.

LTC provides flexibility.

Gold and silver in crypto, I like it.

[Slark]

LTC is nothing without BTC, because BTC developers are the best and LTC depends on BTC developers.

They don't need Bitcoin anymore, they copied whatever they wanted and that is enough.

I don't see why LTC can't go back to $50+ since BTC is trapped in this situation where it refuses to change.

Because we have ETH which become number 2 altcoin and it will be hard for LTC to regain this position.
Just wait when Ethereum will have Raiden, we wouldn't even talk about Litecoin with SegWit by that time.

I love the fact that activation of SegWit for LTC might finally change situation for BTC as well.
That is basically all I am waiting for.

[thejaytiesto]

LTC is nothing without BTC, because BTC developers are the best and LTC depends on BTC developers.

They don't need Bitcoin anymore, they copied whatever they wanted and that is enough.

I don't see why LTC can't go back to $50+ since BTC is trapped in this situation where it refuses to change.

Because we have ETH which become number 2 altcoin and it will be hard for LTC to regain this position.
Just wait when Ethereum will have Raiden, we wouldn't even talk about Litecoin with SegWit by that time.

I love the fact that activation of SegWit for LTC might finally change situation for BTC as well.
That is basically all I am waiting for.

ETH doesn't have the properties of money that are needed to be proper money.. since when money is a turin complete computer?

LTC is much more simpler and straight to the point. With segwit and LN it accomplishes what BTC would if it wasn't for the fact that it's way harder to change, but at the same time LTC gives me more confidence than ETH in terms of a smart contract crashing DAO style, Vitalik rollbacking and so on.

I think both ETH and LTC are good medium term holders in any case.

[sportis]

LTC has its biggest purpose to date in getting segwit on bitcoin. The BU team will be trying hard to stop this im guessing, they should just give up now though.

I would like to see segwit to be activated for LTC even though there are no many everyday transactions as @alyssa85 already stated. Maybe is a good way for people without deep technological background and experience like me to end up with their own practical conclusions.

[Yakamoto]

LTC has its biggest purpose to date in getting segwit on bitcoin. The BU team will be trying hard to stop this im guessing, they should just give up now though.

I would like to see segwit to be activated for LTC even though there are no many everyday transactions as @alyssa85 already stated. Maybe is a good way for people without deep technological background and experience like me to end up with their own practical conclusions.

Getting to actually see Segwit in action, even if it is for a smaller crypto that doesn't have all the same issues that Bitcoin does, would still be a great learning experience for everyone that would be affected by it should it end up getting implemented in the Bitcoin protocol as well. Having tech demonstrations would certainly be a plus for some of those that are still on the fence.

[thejaytiesto]

LTC has its biggest purpose to date in getting segwit on bitcoin. The BU team will be trying hard to stop this im guessing, they should just give up now though.

I would like to see segwit to be activated for LTC even though there are no many everyday transactions as @alyssa85 already stated. Maybe is a good way for people without deep technological background and experience like me to end up with their own practical conclusions.

The only reason LTC doesn't get as many transactions is lack of network effect, that's all. Technically, it is already a better coin for transactions than BTC. After LTC gets segwit and LN, there are no excuses to make transactions under BTC instead of LTC, unless you really need to do it under BTC. For everyday transactions, LTC + segwit + LN is the ideal coin, nothing can outmatch it.

Everyone developing LN technology will pay attention to LTC and implement it there thanks to segwit and thanks to LTC basically being the same as BTC so everything translates easily.

Also I see Blockstream starting to work under a segwit-enabled LTC to showcase their technology and try to convince remaining miners to signal for segwit. Otherwise they may become irrelevant.

[Kprawn]

I think the Coin Cap difference between LTC and BTC will be the thing that determine their success. Bitcoin is currently valuable, because the Coin

Cap is low and there are a huge demand for BTC. If LTC can create a bigger merchant network, they might steal a bigger portion of BTC's user

base, but for now BTC still have the network advantage. 

[btcbug]

The only reason LTC doesn't get as many transactions is lack of network effect, that's all. Technically, it is already a better coin for transactions than BTC. After LTC gets segwit and LN, there are no excuses to make transactions under BTC instead of LTC, unless you really need to do it under BTC. For everyday transactions, LTC + segwit + LN is the ideal coin, nothing can outmatch it.

Everyone developing LN technology will pay attention to LTC and implement it there thanks to segwit and thanks to LTC basically being the same as BTC so everything translates easily.

Also I see Blockstream starting to work under a segwit-enabled LTC to showcase their technology and try to convince remaining miners to signal for segwit. Otherwise they may become irrelevant.

I think this is absolutely right. Are the Blockstream guys and all that investment just gonna sit there while BTC scaling is at a stalemate? Maybe, but I think with LTC being a perfect opportunity to "showcase", as you say, they'll simply head that direction so they can keep forward momentum. Bitcoin may not move ahead for months, years or ever.

Litecoin NEEDS this to remain relevant and it's potentially the perfect solution out of the BTC scaling mess! It's a coin nearly identical to BTC, with a good reputation and history, it still has good trading volume/liquidity. It's the closest drop-in replacement for BTC out there.

It makes complete sense and everyone who's paying attention knows this. This is LTC's destiny!

[Karpeles]

If Litecoin ever gets close to usage and number of transaction of Bitcoin, let's see how the scalability issue will be dealt by them and if they will really do better than Bitcoin