Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit?

[hl5460]

Note:Translated from Jiang Zhuo’er’s original post in Chinese.
Recently, as the discussion around activating Segwit on Litecoin becomes more and more intense, many people have been asking me why my Litecoin pool is not voting for Segwit. I feel the need to address the whole Segwit issue with the following thoughts of mine.


1. The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.
2. The result of our hard work on Litecoin: The LTC Roundtable.
3. The development and stagnation of the Roundtable.
4. The market drives changes
5. More and more attacks
http://news.8btc.com/why-i-am-still-not-voting-for-segwit-an-open-letter-from-jiangzhuoer

[Herbert2020]

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

[Kakmakr]

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that.

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin. 

[Herbert2020]

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that.

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin. 

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.
litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.

and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.
if you are interested, these coins are:
- Groestlcoin
- Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0
- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0
- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

[hl5460]

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that.

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin. 

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.
litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.

and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.
if you are interested, these coins are:
- Groestlcoin
- Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0
- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0
- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

[Amph]

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that.

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.  

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.
litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.

and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.
if you are interested, these coins are:
- Groestlcoin
- Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0
- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0
- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

is it? where? i don't remember litecoin being used as a currency like bitcoin, it's the same shitty coin as before, equal to the other alt that are activating segwit, for instance vertcoin is also on track with segwith, and vertcoin is another big coin

people are just blindly attached to litecoin that's why they think it deserve more attention even now wiht segwit, which is only to increase the hype and do a random pump

What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

signaling for a whole period of the diff retarget if i'm not mistaken, just reaching the threshold % activation won't cut it

[Herbert2020]

...
is it? where? i don't remember litecoin being used as a currency like bitcoin,

as a currency: yes
like bitcoin: no.
where: https://www.google.com/search?q=spend+litecoin
more specifically: https://litecoin.com/services#merchants (check other categories on the left side too).

it's the same shitty coin as before, equal to the other alt that are activating segwit, for instance vertcoin is also on track with segwith, and vertcoin is another big coin

people are just blindly attached to litecoin that's why they think it deserve more attention even now wiht segwit, which is only to increase the hype and do a random pump

i am not hyping litecoin (unlike many these days) i don't think it can change that much about litecoin even with SegWit.
but i wouldn't call it a shitcoin either. it is the oldest altcoin with one of the biggest communities and it has lots of similarities to bitcoin and that is why i said it is different on litecoin than other altcoins.

What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

not sure exactly.
but since SegWit is about malleability fix on top of other things, i suppose the altcoin has to be following the same transaction structure and the same signature.

[NorrisK]

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that.

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin. 

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.
litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.

and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.
if you are interested, these coins are:
- Groestlcoin
- Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0
- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0
- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

I think most altcoins can simply push segwit as an update. The communities are very small so it will generally be accepted pretty easily.

The only barrier is a dev that can code segwit if their coin is not a direct copy of a coin that already has a working version of segwit.

[Quantus]

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that.

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.  

Thats actually really smart, that could work. I don't see any other good ideas.

[Lauda]

1. The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.

This has zero relevance to activating Segwit on LTC.

2. The result of our hard work on Litecoin: The LTC Roundtable.

Not a reason to not vote for Segwit.

3. The development and stagnation of the Roundtable.

It is the same as above.

4. The market drives changes

No. The same people that are spreading FUD about Segwit and FUD about 51% attacking the network are the same ones pumping those scam coins.

Unsurprisingly, on March 30th Litecoin also began a dramatic rise.

This is only due to the Segwit signalling.

5. More and more attacks
http://news.8btc.com/why-i-am-still-not-voting-for-segwit-an-open-letter-from-jiangzhuoer

If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on.

This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.
Tl;dr: This guy has zero real reasons (technology wise) to not support Segwit. The only reason for which he doesn't is politics, which effectively makes him a baboon and a mere pawn in this game.

[dinofelis]

What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

That the alt coin contains the same bugs as bitcoin that need to be fixed

[Sadlife]

I dont see any problem to it besides this solution eliminates bitcoin scaling and malleability then maybe this solution may fix some of litecoins problem.
Litecoin just happened to be an exact copy of Bitcoin that's why segwit is being implemented to it.

[AngryDwarf]

I dont see any problem to it besides this solution eliminates bitcoin scaling and malleability then maybe this solution may fix some of litecoins problem.
Litecoin just happened to be an exact copy of Bitcoin that's why segwit is being implemented to it.

I disagree, it's not a long term elimination to these issues at all, only a part fix.
Transactions are native keys are still malleable. Only transactions on segwit keys on non-malleable = partial fix, not elimination.
The scaling requires the use of segwit transactions (and still has a limit) = partial fix, not elimination.

In the case of LN, people will still only want spending money in an LN channel, not risk there savings. So more on-chain capacity will be required for it to be effective, so people can move money between 'savings' accounts and 'current' accounts for the want of an analogy.

[AngryDwarf]

If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on.

This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.

Have you ever considered what will happen in the event of a UASF? Without miner majority, those implementing the UASF are the malicious actors. It's a charge of the light brigade moment in this situation.

[gentlemand]

So now know Litecoin's activation has nothing to do with, er, Litecoin, and everything to do with Bitcoin. What a worm.

[franky1]

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins

^ this guy now wants blockstream(core) to not only control bitcoin but other alts too..

seriously.. i think Kakmakr doesnt understand decentralised diversity

If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on.

This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.
Tl;dr: This guy has zero real reasons (technology wise) to not support Segwit. The only reason for which he doesn't is politics, which effectively makes him a baboon and a mere pawn in this game.

and here is lauda soo much deeper in the blockstream should own and control everything. that if a community say no to a half baked feature, then instead of re-thinking the half baked feature to re-do it in a way thats fully cooked with all the toppings including. he wants to treat anyone saying no as malicious.

seriously guys
learn consensus
learn decentralised diversity

stop being corporate ass kissers and really think about why bitcoin was invented in the first place!

[Lauda]

Have you ever considered what will happen in the event of a UASF? Without miner majority, those implementing the UASF are the malicious actors. It's a charge of the light brigade moment in this situation.

The amount of hashrate is really non-important. If practically every business and all exchanges support UASF, miners must join that chain or be left mining useless coins. You need to re-think the whole proposal out of the r/btc propaganda and re-think the incentives that it creates.

and here is lauda soo much deeper in the blockstream should own and control everything. that if a community say no to a half baked feature, then instead of re-thinking the half baked feature to re-do it in a way thats fully cooked with all the toppings including. he wants to treat anyone saying no as malicious.

Wrong. If anything, Segwit has a supermajority of support in all three fields: users, developers, economy. You can continue to attempt spreading false information, but as long as certain individuals are around it won't work.

learn consensus
learn decentralised diversity

Ironically, you don't know either.

[Xester]

Litecoin should not accept segwit. Litecoin has operated well over the years without any flaws and the number of ltc users are only small thus it does not to adopt segwit at its current condition. Possibly if the situation of LTC is like bitcoin then probably they would mind choosing segwit but in their case segwit will not be a necessary upgrade for the LTC system.

[franky1]

Wrong. If anything, Segwit has a supermajority of support in all three fields: users, developers, economy. You can continue to attempt spreading false information, but as long as certain individuals are around it won't work.

your the kind of guy that would think that being vegetarian is the only way to eat because daddy vegan only feeds you veg and you only visit veg stores.

get out and explore the world realise that there is more then just the Monsanto carrots on offer and that the world should not be owned by monsanto veg stores

"super majority" 31% of blocks...

[Jet Cash]

SegWit and blocksize are two different issues. SegWit offers lots of advantages, and should be activated asap. Bigger blocks turn the Bitcoin delivery van into a lumbering articulated lorry, what is required is a rapid Bitcoin motorcycle delivery service with smaller faster blocks.