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

[jonald_fyookball]

This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?

You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?

LN does not at all eliminate the need for bigger blocks and in fact the LN whitepaper says it will require larger blocks.    Also, LN may be extremely useful but is not a complete scaling solution because it does not always fit the needs of people who want to use Bitcoin as peer to peer cash (because you first have to open channels, probably with centralized hubs). 

So, I will ask you now:  Were you unaware of this, or shilling for Blockstream/Core ?

[1714812406]

1714812406

[1714812406]

1714812406

[1714812406]

1714812406

[mackenzied]

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).

Not sure what you are saying, but I think anything should be supported by everyone. If it works by itself, it will be a lone monster, and people will not accept it.

[Kakmakr]

This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?

You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?

LN does not at all eliminate the need for bigger blocks and in fact the LN whitepaper says it will require larger blocks.    Also, LN may be extremely useful but is not a complete scaling solution because it does not always fit the needs of people who want to use Bitcoin as peer to peer cash (because you first have to open channels, probably with centralized hubs). 

So, I will ask you now:  Were you unaware of this, or shilling for Blockstream/Core ?

It will eventually need larger blocks, but not as aggressively as with BU. I am also aware that bigger blocks alone, will never support a peer2peer cash payment network that would be able to compete with other existing payment networks that are out there. < Bigger block sizes bring more issues >

I am shilling for Bitmixer at the moment, so my opinion does not count according to non-sig members. ^smile^

I am actually not a big supporter of both of these implementations, because BU and Core both have some things I do not support, but at this stage I can see why Core might be better. 

[DoublerHunter]

Bitcoin can do it, if segwit will be available for bitcoin too, If SegWit will be successful in litecoin then bitcoin can try it too and we can expect a good result just like in litecoin price, from around 0.004 up to 0.01 , that is a huge gain for litecoin and i think bitcoin can gain that big percentage also, if segwit will applied to bitcoin.

[Amph]

well think about that, litecoin doesn't have litecoin unlimited competitors, so they have no choice, and also miners know that by supporting segwit now on litecoin the value will increase, this is a win situation for them

no miners i his right mind would say no to thisand there is also no asic boost for litecoin that i'm aware of, but with bitcoin is different the situation have muliple "antagonist" to segwit

[arklan]

well think about that, litecoin doesn't have litecoin unlimited competitors, so they have no choice, and also miners know that by supporting segwit now on litecoin the value will increase, this is a win situation for them

no miners i his right mind would say no to thisand there is also no asic boost for litecoin that i'm aware of, but with bitcoin is different the situation have muliple "antagonist" to segwit

lack of antagonists is a very good point.

[pawel7777]

...muh shills...muh r/btc...

I'm not giving up on you. Let me try this way:

The miners violated the Hong Kong agreement.

They violated the agreement with whom?

[mimini0147]

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.

Segwit will never have 100% support from bitcoin miners. Bitcoin users in general value decentralization and the lightning network is nothing if not centralization.

Although bitcoin unlimited has a few bugs (such as the memory leak bug that is shutting down node) it still has around 40% support from miners. You should consider that there are many more bitcoin miners when compared to those that mine litecoin so it will be much more difficult to get the 95% support that the bitcoin devs need to activate segwit. We may see a shift in the segwit support percentage depending on what happens with litecoin after they activate segwit. Why did litecoin need segwit in the first place? Aren't transactions confirmed within ~3 minutes?

[AngryDwarf]

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).

Not sure what you are saying, but I think anything should be supported by everyone. If it works by itself, it will be a lone monster, and people will not accept it.

What the UASF light brigade fail to recognise, or conveniently ignore, is that without a miner majority it is a User Assisted Suicide Fork. It would also create disruption to the network while the winning chain is decided on. This is why BIP148 is still in draft, and the UASF light brigade have to use their own implementation of a node, Bitcoin UASF.

LTC segwit had miner majority, and f2pool was the key player on this decision. They all agreed that UASF was a bad idea. Jihan Wu probably thought it was a waste of his resources trying to fight a litecoin UASF, so he probably decided it was a good idea to push the segwit supporters and developers over to LTC.

Looks like bitcoin core is going to become a clone of litecoin core!

[-ck]

Looks like bitcoin core is going to become a clone of litecoin core!

While I understand what you're trying to say, that makes no sense since the litecoin changes were all ported from bitcoin core...

Bitcoin users in general value decentralization and the lightning network is nothing if not centralization.

And you all keep missing the point that lightning network can be implemented (albeit in a reduced functionality form) even WITHOUT segwit. As this is a recurring complaint about segwit, it shows how strong the FUD is when it's actually a non-argument.

[AngryDwarf]

Looks like bitcoin core is going to become a clone of litecoin core!

While I understand what you're trying to say, that makes no sense since the litecoin changes were all ported from bitcoin core...

To progress segwit/LN, the changes will now have to be implemented on litecoin first, and ported back to BTC if segwit is activated on bitcoin.

[cellard]

You guys can't miss this:

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/856826710314045441

They are spreading fake news about exchanges halting Litecoin transactions in order to cause a shakeout before segwit gets in. This shows how much they want to buy cheap LTC before it goes to the moon after segwit activates.

...
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.

Lol. Are you saying "Core" is not able to come to any sort of decision until every single one of that 100 (incl. spell checkers) agrees on it? Are they not able to delegate representation to the meeting? Are they capable of making any decisions at all? Didn't G Maxwell call them 'dipshits' for acting like they were representing Core team?

I don't have to investigate, I was here at that time and was watching closely, long before you created your sockpuppet account to act like a grassroots Core support.

Oooh, congratulations you got an account that's been around for a long time and it was probably sold to the highest shill employer too. If you don't know how Bitcoin development works, you probably shouldn't be posting here.

Shill on my friend.

Let me help some, core = blockstream, blockstream = banksters, banksters behind SegWit, therefore SegWit bad. Oh and throw something in there about blockstream not wanting bigger blocks because they want to centralize bitcoin through lightning network and make Bitcoin a settlement layer.

That's the shill argument that r/btc has been regurgitating endlessly, right?

Why don't you talk about CIA-backed Bitcoin XT/Classic/Unlimited? Or do the conspiracy theories only apply if they meet your agenda?

[Xester]

Bitcoin can do it, if segwit will be available for bitcoin too, If SegWit will be successful in litecoin then bitcoin can try it too and we can expect a good result just like in litecoin price, from around 0.004 up to 0.01 , that is a huge gain for litecoin and i think bitcoin can gain that big percentage also, if segwit will applied to bitcoin.

I do think that Litecoin doesnt need Segwit right now since litecoin with its current system is capable of functioning without problems. But using segwit as early as of this moment is just a preparation for whatever may come in the future and also to make litecoins value kick in the market. But with regards to bitcoin who has different situations with litecoins let us just hope that when segwit is activated bitcoin will be much better and transaction will be much faster than ever and the fees will also drop.

[traderethereum]

i am really happy that litecoin has reach 100% of segwit and its proof by the price increase suddenly and now the price is at 0.01x. i am not sure that btc can do it like what LTC do because i think bitcoin community has been split into many group and each of group can not make one vote and its not good for bitcoin community itself. we need to have one voice in bitcoin world without any of individual concern.

[BillyBobZorton]

Looks like bitcoin core is going to become a clone of litecoin core!

While I understand what you're trying to say, that makes no sense since the litecoin changes were all ported from bitcoin core...

Bitcoin users in general value decentralization and the lightning network is nothing if not centralization.

And you all keep missing the point that lightning network can be implemented (albeit in a reduced functionality form) even WITHOUT segwit. As this is a recurring complaint about segwit, it shows how strong the FUD is when it's actually a non-argument.

The only FUD here which is a non-argument is yours, by claiming "LTC is useless", and downplaying the importance of segwit in order for lightning networks to properly function. You are not looking at the big picture, if you can't see how LTC will become immensely useful as BTC fees and transaction fees go higher.

And no, LN without segwit is a centralized mess not worth a developer's time, so they will work on LTC and port their code in BTC *if BTC ever gets segwit*.

BTC will remain the biggest coin, but LTC will take second place eventually. Don't blindfold yourself and pick some.

[aso118]

I don't see such consensus occuring in Bitcoin, especially after how the community has engaged in a bitter battle.
At best, we can have an uneasy truce, where one side waits and watches about how SW is implemented.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't see such consensus occuring in Bitcoin, especially after how the community has engaged in a bitter battle.
At best, we can have an uneasy truce, where one side waits and watches about how SW is implemented.

Just because litecoin doesn't blow up doesn't mean people will love Segwit...  Other coins are doing proof of stake and not blowing up -- does that mean Bitcon should to?

I want the Bitcoin I signed up for that Satoshi wrote about.  Big blocks, big on chain scaling, and none of the complicated bullshit.

[leopard2]

This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?

You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?

LN does not at all eliminate the need for bigger blocks and in fact the LN whitepaper says it will require larger blocks.    Also, LN may be extremely useful but is not a complete scaling solution because it does not always fit the needs of people who want to use Bitcoin as peer to peer cash (because you first have to open channels, probably with centralized hubs). 

So, I will ask you now:  Were you unaware of this, or shilling for Blockstream/Core ?

I am with Jonald on this one. LN selling point is, that it is OPTIONAL. In order to remain optional in the long term, blocks need to become bigger, too. Otherwise, when they become full, LN would become non-optional and become a Paypal-like vehicle.

Which is just as evil as Asicboost I guess 

Best solution would be a hybrid, I guess, a Segwit/BU hybrid that has larger blocks hardwired, so that the LN supporters cannot cheat when time has come to increase block size.

[crazyivan]

I d say all this is just test ground for BTC. Sure Segwit will happen for BTC too. Do you really think there re another viable option??

[bartolo]

I d say all this is just test ground for BTC. Sure Segwit will happen for BTC too. Do you really think there re another viable option??

This is how I see it too, if Segwit is successfull with Litecoin their supporters for Bitcoin will have a strong argument to reinforce their position.