The impossible has been reached: LTC has 100% SW support! Can BTC ever do it?

[pereira4]

With ViaBTC on board, LTC will have 100% support from miners in this activation period.

2017-04-24 18:42   1191817   ViaLTC   ✓   ✓   ✓   131639   22   13 kB

https://www.litecoinpool.org/pools

Amazing! I thought I would never live to see such a moment.

Now, the question is, can BTC ever reach enough consensus to make it happen? Is UASF really the only way? Do we really want to UASF?

There are so many questions and LTC segwit has a big direct impact in the BTC ecosystem. The price will eventually react positively to the new dimension of possibilities unlocked in LTC.

[1714803440]

1714803440

[1714803440]

1714803440

[1714803440]

1714803440

[FiendCoin]

Impossible for BTC, Jihan Wu hates Core too much, it will never happen.

[Iranus]

Impossible for BTC, Jihan Wu hates Core too much, it will never happen.

UASF is a User Activated Soft Fork.  Basically, it's a mandatory activation.  Therefore it could happen without 95% hashrate actually supporting SegWit (which realistically will never happen).

[Clement Kaliyar]

I did not knew that it was this easy to convince the giant Jihan Wu to Signal for Segwit and as soon as Charlie Lee requested they accepted but as that wont be that easy with bitcoin as we do not have a father figure like Charlie Lee ,if and when Satoshi comes and convinces the miners then it might be possible,if not all the egos will clash to determine who is powerful.

[pawel7777]

Speaking to CoinDesk, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu confirmed he was personally in attendance at the meeting, despite his long opposition to the same upgrade on the bitcoin network. He said that it was the combination of SegWit, with a promise to support on-chain scaling solutions, that ultimately led Bitmain to back the proposal.

"Charlie [Lee] promised to provide solution of increasing the block size when it is half full," he said.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

So not much different than Hong Kong agreement, support for segwit in exchange for blocksize increase. Except Charlie Lee can't  backpedal on his promise with "I represented Charlie Lee - an individual, not Charlie Lee - developer", hence the success.

[FiendCoin]

Speaking to CoinDesk, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu confirmed he was personally in attendance at the meeting, despite his long opposition to the same upgrade on the bitcoin network. He said that it was the combination of SegWit, with a promise to support on-chain scaling solutions, that ultimately led Bitmain to back the proposal.

"Charlie [Lee] promised to provide solution of increasing the block size when it is half full," he said.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

So not much different than Hong Kong agreement, support for segwit in exchange for blocksize increase. Except Charlie Lee can't  backpedal on his promise with "I represented Charlie Lee - an individual, not Charlie Lee - developer", hence the success.

The miners violated the Hong Kong agreement.

[arklan]

i still don't really understand the benefits of segwit - taking the witness data and putting it elsewhere, as i understand it - or whatever it is that BU is porposing - with their code fails i've not looked - compared to just dynamically increasing blocksize.

oh, wait, doesn't segwit actually fix a malleability flaw?

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Right and hardware wallets will run faster with SegWit also enables LN.

[pawel7777]

Speaking to CoinDesk, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu confirmed he was personally in attendance at the meeting, despite his long opposition to the same upgrade on the bitcoin network. He said that it was the combination of SegWit, with a promise to support on-chain scaling solutions, that ultimately led Bitmain to back the proposal.

"Charlie [Lee] promised to provide solution of increasing the block size when it is half full," he said.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

So not much different than Hong Kong agreement, support for segwit in exchange for blocksize increase. Except Charlie Lee can't  backpedal on his promise with "I represented Charlie Lee - an individual, not Charlie Lee - developer", hence the success.

The miners violated the Hong Kong agreement.

Nope. Right after the agreement was published, few other Core devs who weren't there said the agreement means nothing to them and won't support 2mb fork, then turned out the 'Core representation' was just a few individuals representing only themselves, rendering the entire meeting pointless. That's why some miners flipped, Jihan was pretty patient though iirc.

Whether it was incompetence and/or lack of communication between the Core team, or just a smart stunt to prevent Classic from getting a momentum - let everyone judge for themselves.

[jonald_fyookball]

i still don't really understand the benefits of segwit - taking the witness data and putting it elsewhere, as i understand it - or whatever it is that BU is porposing - with their code fails i've not looked - compared to just dynamically increasing blocksize.

oh, wait, doesn't segwit actually fix a malleability flaw?

You can read about the benefits on bitcoincore.org

I do not support segwit even though it has some benefits.   It is heading down a dangerous centrally planned path.  I would much rather have bigger blocks and a diversified landscape of multiple implementations.

[ebliever]

Segwit in itself doesn't centralize anything.

BU certainly centralizes a lot, as we see every time the majority of their nodes crash. Again.

[cryp24x]

Once LTC has 100% support and activated and the Bitcoin community saw the positive effect outweighing the negative effect of it, then probably  the Bitcoin community will come to support Segwit but I doubt that 100% will be achieved, there will be people who will always go against the majority due to ego and pride. Worst, for personal intention.

[-ck]

Segwit activation will happen on LTC and then... nothing will happen. LTC will continue to be as useless as it's always been and people will realise and its value will drop to its same baseline. However, what this will achieve is finally some good publicity for segwit in general since activation will be such a non-event where nothing bad happens and people will wonder what the fuss was all about. This will indirectly be good for bitcoin's segwit implementation - therefore this almost certainly will be the single most useful thing LTC has ever done. Which is a good thing since that's what altcoins were always meant to be in the first place - a playground for ideas for BTC; that got forgotten years ago and altcoins are just everyone trying to ride the next market capitalisation wave to be rich. They're all just playgrounds for pump and dump.

Anyway good news for segwit.

[FiendCoin]

Speaking to CoinDesk, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu confirmed he was personally in attendance at the meeting, despite his long opposition to the same upgrade on the bitcoin network. He said that it was the combination of SegWit, with a promise to support on-chain scaling solutions, that ultimately led Bitmain to back the proposal.

"Charlie [Lee] promised to provide solution of increasing the block size when it is half full," he said.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

So not much different than Hong Kong agreement, support for segwit in exchange for blocksize increase. Except Charlie Lee can't  backpedal on his promise with "I represented Charlie Lee - an individual, not Charlie Lee - developer", hence the success.

The miners violated the Hong Kong agreement.

Nope. Right after the agreement was published, few other Core devs who weren't there said the agreement means nothing to them and won't support 2mb fork, then turned out the 'Core representation' was just a few individuals representing only themselves, rendering the entire meeting pointless. That's why some miners flipped, Jihan was pretty patient though iirc.

Whether it was incompetence and/or lack of communication between the Core team, or just a smart stunt to prevent Classic from getting a momentum - let everyone judge for themselves.

There are more 100 people in "core" and "core" does not have a leader that speaks for them all. So a few people from "core" can not make an agreement that all of "core" must follow.

The whole "core" violated the agreement narrative is a fallacy I wish the shills would stop spewing about.

If you spend some time investigating this, you will find plenty information about it instead of regurgitating r/btc trash.

[jonald_fyookball]

Speaking to CoinDesk, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu confirmed he was personally in attendance at the meeting, despite his long opposition to the same upgrade on the bitcoin network. He said that it was the combination of SegWit, with a promise to support on-chain scaling solutions, that ultimately led Bitmain to back the proposal.

"Charlie [Lee] promised to provide solution of increasing the block size when it is half full," he said.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

So not much different than Hong Kong agreement, support for segwit in exchange for blocksize increase. Except Charlie Lee can't  backpedal on his promise with "I represented Charlie Lee - an individual, not Charlie Lee - developer", hence the success.

The miners violated the Hong Kong agreement.

Nope. Right after the agreement was published, few other Core devs who weren't there said the agreement means nothing to them and won't support 2mb fork, then turned out the 'Core representation' was just a few individuals representing only themselves, rendering the entire meeting pointless. That's why some miners flipped, Jihan was pretty patient though iirc.

Whether it was incompetence and/or lack of communication between the Core team, or just a smart stunt to prevent Classic from getting a momentum - let everyone judge for themselves.

There are more 100 people in "core" and "core" does not have a leader that speaks for them all. So a few people from "core" can not make an agreement that all of "core" must follow.

The whole "core" violated the agreement narrative is a fallacy I wish the shills would stop spewing about.

If you spend some time investigating this, you will find plenty information about it instead of regurgitating r/btc trash.

Everyone knows this argument is bullshit on several levels.

Core does have leaders within its organization.

But, also its irrelevant who agreed to what because Core failed to raise the block limit and fought people like Gavin , Garzig , and Hearn who were trying to.

Core simply doesn't want bigger blocks and their actions prove it.  If you can't admit that, you're obviously a shill of some kind. 

[unamis76]

Segwit activation will happen on LTC and then... nothing will happen.

At least regarding scaling nothing will happen indeed. It will only solve a problem that LTC doesn't even have... As for the rest I agree... It's a good testbed for Bitcoin.

[freedomno1]

With ViaBTC on board, LTC will have 100% support from miners in this activation period.

2017-04-24 18:42   1191817   ViaLTC   ✓   ✓   ✓   131639   22   13 kB

https://www.litecoinpool.org/pools

Amazing! I thought I would never live to see such a moment.

Now, the question is, can BTC ever reach enough consensus to make it happen? Is UASF really the only way? Do we really want to UASF?

There are so many questions and LTC segwit has a big direct impact in the BTC ecosystem. The price will eventually react positively to the new dimension of possibilities unlocked in LTC.

Perhaps people will observe any issues with Segwit through Litecoin similar to a beta test seeing no issues it may move some Bitcoin users towards the Segwit side.
95% Though highly unlikely given the current Bitcoin climate but hash rate does change over time, the key note here seems to be LTC Still has its founder and can promise agreements while we have a broken community consensus and dev issues due to that we get stuck.
Passing the buck to a Testnet in litecoin ^^.

[FlamingFingers]

Ah, finally. Some good news that one never thought to hear. I guess since LTC is a clone of BTC, we would see the true influence of SegWit – whether it's good or bad. It was a good thing that LTC was created – to test and apply anything wanted to be implemented in Bitcoin, and to see what would happen.

[JeffBrad12]

Impossible for BTC, Jihan Wu hates Core too much, it will never happen.

UASF is a User Activated Soft Fork.  Basically, it's a mandatory activation.  Therefore it could happen without 95% hashrate actually supporting SegWit (which realistically will never happen).

UASF is not a recommended way to activate SegWit. It's not a mandatory but forced activation. It's not based on the consensus UASF has the same risk with BU activation.

Just try to activate the scalability solution through UASF is a same to put a chain on the risk to get split.

[Marma Kalari]

Once LTC has 100% support and activated and the Bitcoin community saw the positive effect outweighing the negative effect of it, then probably  the Bitcoin community will come to support Segwit but I doubt that 100% will be achieved, there will be people who will always go against the majority due to ego and pride. Worst, for personal intention.

Ego and pride are a big problem in this field and if you really wanted to succeed in life you have to start accepting others ,with the developer behind litecoin asking for the request of Jihan Wu to support segwit they full accepted the fact that they would support the activation after their meetings but i never thought that they will activate it too soon.