Atomic chain swap between btc and ltc

[Herbert2020]

If I get this correctly, it then means that I can just send my ltc to my btc wallet and it will appear as btc but at the currently prevailing rate which then means that there won't be any thing like mistakenly sending ltc to btc address? But the issue what will be the conversion rate?

Because at that point, LTC's acceptance/utility would be exactly the same as Bitcoin, actually it might be better since LTC has faster blocks. So my logic says, LTC will achieve conversion rate of 25% of BTC at some point in the future.

Also, once LTC utility become = BTC, LTC might become immensely popular with the general public as it won't be as expensive as Bitcoin to "buy 1 whole coin".

it is hard to say, 25% of bitcoin price is nearly $1200 and i don't think litecoin is ready for it now. that would be a huge rise and the market of Litecoin still has the old pump and dump to it with the freaking Chinese right on top of it.
maybe someday that happens too. but i wouldn't expect it so soon. this year we can easily expect prices around $300 with the way price has been staying up and have a solid rise afterwards.

[1714189548]

1714189548

[1714189548]

1714189548

[DragonSlayer]

If I get this correctly, it then means that I can just send my ltc to my btc wallet and it will appear as btc but at the currently prevailing rate which then means that there won't be any thing like mistakenly sending ltc to btc address? But the issue what will be the conversion rate?

Because at that point, LTC's acceptance/utility would be exactly the same as Bitcoin, actually it might be better since LTC has faster blocks. So my logic says, LTC will achieve conversion rate of 25% of BTC at some point in the future.

Also, once LTC utility become = BTC, LTC might become immensely popular with the general public as it won't be as expensive as Bitcoin to "buy 1 whole coin".

it is hard to say, 25% of bitcoin price is nearly $1200 and i don't think litecoin is ready for it now. that would be a huge rise and the market of Litecoin still has the old pump and dump to it with the freaking Chinese right on top of it.
maybe someday that happens too. but i wouldn't expect it so soon. this year we can easily expect prices around $300 with the way price has been staying up and have a solid rise afterwards.

It will takes a long time before to be happen since many people are focusing on some coins around and Litecoin is kinda outdated unlike those fresh hyped coins today, But we should see on how litecoin last if this coin will continue to gain more or it will became stable like what happen for it before for such a long time, Litecoin is old Geek.

[Herbert2020]

If I get this correctly, it then means that I can just send my ltc to my btc wallet and it will appear as btc but at the currently prevailing rate which then means that there won't be any thing like mistakenly sending ltc to btc address? But the issue what will be the conversion rate?

Because at that point, LTC's acceptance/utility would be exactly the same as Bitcoin, actually it might be better since LTC has faster blocks. So my logic says, LTC will achieve conversion rate of 25% of BTC at some point in the future.

Also, once LTC utility become = BTC, LTC might become immensely popular with the general public as it won't be as expensive as Bitcoin to "buy 1 whole coin".

it is hard to say, 25% of bitcoin price is nearly $1200 and i don't think litecoin is ready for it now. that would be a huge rise and the market of Litecoin still has the old pump and dump to it with the freaking Chinese right on top of it.
maybe someday that happens too. but i wouldn't expect it so soon. this year we can easily expect prices around $300 with the way price has been staying up and have a solid rise afterwards.

It will takes a long time before to be happen since many people are focusing on some coins around and Litecoin is kinda outdated unlike those fresh hyped coins today, But we should see on how litecoin last if this coin will continue to gain more or it will became stable like what happen for it before for such a long time, Litecoin is old Geek.

all these "focus" that you are talking about is called "pump and dump" and it always exists in the altcoin market, it is not new and it is not just now for new coins. it has always been around and it will always be around.
and at the same time coins like Litecoin that have something going on for them and interest investors in a more long term period (that just a short couple of days pump and dump) will continue rising. as you can see it passed $70 recently.

[feelideb]

Litecoin is the fastest and the fee is very low. Litecoin had suffer over the years in terms of price. Bitcoin always take the shine. Lee has been so consistent. It is time for litecoin to shine

[deisik]

But what affect will it have on the price you saying 25% of bitcoin price that is 1200 and litecoin is not even 100$ so how will this even swap help the price increase the trading volumes of litecoin is not too high and this will only help exchanging so no price increase will even occur. In long term it might help when all trusted exchanges will turn into a scam

Exchanges have really no say in the matter, once users realize LTC = BTC in acceptance and utility, users will flock to LTC because LTC = BTC, but currently is cheaper than BTC, much cheaper.

Wake up! You seem to be wet-dreaming

Why should users realize that Litecoin is the same as Bitcoin? Litecoin is a different coin and has been so for over 5 years already. In fact, Litecoin is better in utility than Bitcoin (cheap and fast transactions and now higher profitability) but its adoption still sucks. And, in my opinion, it sucks specifically because people always thought that Litecoin is (was) essentially nothing but a clone of Bitcoin. If anything, Litecoin is a lot better than Bitcoin, and it is better if only because for it being heavily underpriced and undervalued presently (read its profit potential is way higher)

[talkbitcoin]

Litecoin is the fastest and the fee is very low. Litecoin had suffer over the years in terms of price. Bitcoin always take the shine. Lee has been so consistent. It is time for litecoin to shine

the speed is nearly the same as bitcoin, maybe a little bit faster because you will require more than a certain number of confirmation (usually 6+) until you can consider it final. and the fees are low but not the lowest.
Litecoin also doesn't really offer much different stuff although it is a better coin than half of the altcoins. and that is the reason for its high price and the rising price is because of the SegWit and more associated with bitcoin.

[deisik]

Litecoin is the fastest and the fee is very low. Litecoin had suffer over the years in terms of price. Bitcoin always take the shine. Lee has been so consistent. It is time for litecoin to shine

the speed is nearly the same as bitcoin, maybe a little bit faster because you will require more than a certain number of confirmation (usually 6+) until you can consider it final. and the fees are low but not the lowest.
Litecoin also doesn't really offer much different stuff although it is a better coin than half of the altcoins. and that is the reason for its high price and the rising price is because of the SegWit and more associated with bitcoin.

I like the way you distort the facts

So that they better fit your theory as well as not tell us the whole truth. But as they say, half-truths are even worse than outright lies. First of all, you may really have to wait for 6 confirmations for a Litecoin payment to be credited to your account, but it doesn't in the least mean that your Bitcoin payment will be credited on just 1 confirmation. It it typically 3 confirmations or more, so even according to your own reasoning Litecoin has a considerable advantage before Bitcoin since it has 4 times faster blocks (read you will get 6 Litecoin confirmations a lot faster than 3 Bitcoin confirmations). Further, you completely discard the fact that nowadays Bitcoin confirmations are few and far in between (thanks to miners sabotaging Bitcoin mining in favor of BCash now and then), and folks have to literally wait hours till their transaction gets confirmed. Apart from that, you say that there are cheaper coins (in terms of transaction costs) but this is irrelevant and utterly inconsequential since it is Bitcoin transactions that are way more costly than Litecoin's (on the scale of orders)

[HeRetiK]

Litecoin is the fastest and the fee is very low. Litecoin had suffer over the years in terms of price. Bitcoin always take the shine. Lee has been so consistent. It is time for litecoin to shine

the speed is nearly the same as bitcoin, maybe a little bit faster because you will require more than a certain number of confirmation (usually 6+) until you can consider it final. and the fees are low but not the lowest.
Litecoin also doesn't really offer much different stuff although it is a better coin than half of the altcoins. and that is the reason for its high price and the rising price is because of the SegWit and more associated with bitcoin.

I like the way you distort the facts

So that they better fit your theory as well as not telling us the whole truth. But as they say, half-truths are even worse than outright lies. First of all, if you may really have to wait for 6 confirmations for a Litecoin payment to be credited to your account, but it doesn't in the least mean that your Bitcoin payment will be credited on just 1 confirmation. It it typically 3 transactions or more, so even according to your own reasoning Litecoin has a considerable advantage before Bitcoin since it has 4 times faster blocks (read you will get 6 Litecoin confirmations a lot faster than 3 Bitcoin confirmations). Further, you completely discard the fact that nowadays Bitcoin confirmations are few and far in between (thanks to miners sabotaging Bitcoin mining in favor of BCash now and then), and folks have to literally wait hours till their transaction gets confirmed. Apart from that, you say that there are cheaper coins (in terms of transaction costs) but this is irrelevant and utterly inconsequential since it is Bitcoin transactions that are way more costly than Litecoin's (on the scale of orders)

You do know that Litecoin's reduced block time comes at a cost of reduced security, right? Probabilistically speaking you need 4x as many confirmations on Litecoin to reach the same transaction security as with Bitcoin. In practice of course the chance of a double-spend attack on either network is rather low, but it's important to note that faster block times don't necessarily mean faster transactions, unless they come at the cost of security.

[deisik]

Litecoin is the fastest and the fee is very low. Litecoin had suffer over the years in terms of price. Bitcoin always take the shine. Lee has been so consistent. It is time for litecoin to shine

the speed is nearly the same as bitcoin, maybe a little bit faster because you will require more than a certain number of confirmation (usually 6+) until you can consider it final. and the fees are low but not the lowest.
Litecoin also doesn't really offer much different stuff although it is a better coin than half of the altcoins. and that is the reason for its high price and the rising price is because of the SegWit and more associated with bitcoin.

I like the way you distort the facts

So that they better fit your theory as well as not telling us the whole truth. But as they say, half-truths are even worse than outright lies. First of all, if you may really have to wait for 6 confirmations for a Litecoin payment to be credited to your account, but it doesn't in the least mean that your Bitcoin payment will be credited on just 1 confirmation. It it typically 3 transactions or more, so even according to your own reasoning Litecoin has a considerable advantage before Bitcoin since it has 4 times faster blocks (read you will get 6 Litecoin confirmations a lot faster than 3 Bitcoin confirmations). Further, you completely discard the fact that nowadays Bitcoin confirmations are few and far in between (thanks to miners sabotaging Bitcoin mining in favor of BCash now and then), and folks have to literally wait hours till their transaction gets confirmed. Apart from that, you say that there are cheaper coins (in terms of transaction costs) but this is irrelevant and utterly inconsequential since it is Bitcoin transactions that are way more costly than Litecoin's (on the scale of orders)

You do know that Litecoin's reduced block time comes at a cost of reduced security, right? Probabilistically speaking you need 4x as many confirmations on Litecoin to reach the same transaction security as with Bitcoin. In practice of course the chance of a double-spend attack on either network is rather low, but it's important to note that faster block times don't necessarily mean faster transactions, unless they come at the cost of security

Oh, now you decided to step in too with your own portion of half-truths?

Indeed, faster blocks mean less security. Provided all other things are kept the same which is obviously not the case between Bitcoin and Litecoin. The harsh truth is that the higher security due to slower confirmation times is completely offset by heavy monopolization of Bitcoin mining. So the net effect is that it is Bitcoin which is less secure overall than Litecoin since its mining is by far more centralized, and this might have more severe consequences than just a double-spend attempt. But you should know that yourself. Anyway, Litecoin has been there for 5 years already, and its faster confirmations have never been an issue

[alyssa85]

Why should users realize that Litecoin is the same as Bitcoin? Litecoin is a different coin and has been so for over 5 years already. In fact, Litecoin is better in utility than Bitcoin (cheap and fast transactions and now higher profitability) but its adoption still sucks. And, in my opinion, it sucks specifically because people always thought that Litecoin is (was) essentially nothing but a clone of Bitcoin. If anything, Litecoin is a lot better than Bitcoin, and it is better if only because for it being heavily underpriced and undervalued presently (read its profit potential is way higher)

Adoption is increasing though. A week ago litecoin was only doing 20,000 transactions a day, now it's up to 42,000 transactions:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactions.html

That said, I doubt anyone is going to use segwit or atomic chain swap with litecoin. They've only added these features to give the speculators some "news" to hang a pump onto.

[HeRetiK]

You do know that Litecoin's reduced block time comes at a cost of reduced security, right? Probabilistically speaking you need 4x as many confirmations on Litecoin to reach the same transaction security as with Bitcoin. In practice of course the chance of a double-spend attack on either network is rather low, but it's important to note that faster block times don't necessarily mean faster transactions, unless they come at the cost of security

Oh, now you decided to step in too with your own portion of half-truths?

Indeed, faster blocks mean less security. Provided all other things are kept the same which is obviously not the case between Bitcoin and Litecoin. The harsh truth is that the higher security due to slower confirmation times is completely offset by heavy monopolization of Bitcoin mining. So the net effect is that it is Bitcoin which is less secure overall than Litecoin since its mining is by far more centralized, and this might have more severe consequences than just a double-spend attempt. But you should know that yourself. Anyway, Litecoin has been there for 5 years already, and its faster confirmations have never been an issue

I didn't mean to interrupt, it's just that it's tiring to see that the myth of faster settlement due to shorter block intervals is still so prevalent.

Regarding the monopolization of Bitcoin mining -- I'm sorry to say, but ever since the arrival of Scrypt ASICs, Litecoin and Bitcoin have been more or less in the same boat. Currently Litecoin's hashrate distribution looks far worse than that of Bitcoin actually. Holy shit. So much for "harsh truth".

Luckily "the offset by heavy monopolization" of mining doesn't affect the probability of a successful hashrate-based double-spend attack that much until a single entity has more than 30-40%. Which is to say that F2Pool currently has an awful lot of power in the Litecoin network and definitely shouldn't collude with Antpool.

[deisik]

You do know that Litecoin's reduced block time comes at a cost of reduced security, right? Probabilistically speaking you need 4x as many confirmations on Litecoin to reach the same transaction security as with Bitcoin. In practice of course the chance of a double-spend attack on either network is rather low, but it's important to note that faster block times don't necessarily mean faster transactions, unless they come at the cost of security

Oh, now you decided to step in too with your own portion of half-truths?

Indeed, faster blocks mean less security. Provided all other things are kept the same which is obviously not the case between Bitcoin and Litecoin. The harsh truth is that the higher security due to slower confirmation times is completely offset by heavy monopolization of Bitcoin mining. So the net effect is that it is Bitcoin which is less secure overall than Litecoin since its mining is by far more centralized, and this might have more severe consequences than just a double-spend attempt. But you should know that yourself. Anyway, Litecoin has been there for 5 years already, and its faster confirmations have never been an issue

I didn't mean to interrupt, it's just that it's tiring to see that the myth of faster settlement due to shorter block intervals is still so prevalent.

Regarding the monopolization of Bitcoin mining -- I'm sorry to say, but ever since the arrival of Scrypt ASICs, Litecoin and Bitcoin have been more or less in the same boat. Currently Litecoin's hashrate distribution looks far worse than that of Bitcoin actually. Holy shit. So much for "harsh truth"

Again, you are not telling the whole truth

Wtf, is there anyone over here who actually does? If Litecoin miners had that complete control over the network as you claim they have, why Segwit and Lightening Network had been activated in Litecoin without much ado and beating around the bush, unlike what we have seen with Bitcoin and will likely see again in the nearest future? Regarding the myth of faster settlements, it seems that it has more to do with the myth of orphaned blocks flooding the network due to faster block generation times. But that's remained only that, i.e. just a myth or an urban legend of sorts. As I said already, Litecoin has been around for quite some time by now, the point which you chose to ignore somehow in your reply

[feelideb]

We can argue all we want but the fact is: litecoin is faster with lower fee and Bitcoin is annoyingly slow with with ridiculous fee. These difference in efficiency is what matter to user and will ultimately decide adoption of either of the two currency.

[deisik]

We can argue all we want but the fact is: litecoin is faster with lower fee and Bitcoin is annoyingly slow with with ridiculous fee. These difference in efficiency is what matter to user and will ultimately decide adoption of either of the two currency

Obviously, it is farther from truth than you think

As much as I myself want it to be true, I still have to accept the whole truth. And it basically says that while Litecoin is by far more technically efficient (in terms of transaction confirmation times, at least) and way cheaper at that (both in price and fees), people massively don't care. All they care for is profits, and as long as Bitcoin can offer higher profitability in the long run, it will be ahead of the pack. On the other hand, it Litecoin (or any other coin, for that matter) is able to show consistent growth month after month, speculators will certainly start pouring cash into it

[HeRetiK]

Oh, now you decided to step in too with your own portion of half-truths?

Indeed, faster blocks mean less security. Provided all other things are kept the same which is obviously not the case between Bitcoin and Litecoin. The harsh truth is that the higher security due to slower confirmation times is completely offset by heavy monopolization of Bitcoin mining. So the net effect is that it is Bitcoin which is less secure overall than Litecoin since its mining is by far more centralized, and this might have more severe consequences than just a double-spend attempt. But you should know that yourself. Anyway, Litecoin has been there for 5 years already, and its faster confirmations have never been an issue

I didn't mean to interrupt, it's just that it's tiring to see that the myth of faster settlement due to shorter block intervals is still so prevalent.



Regarding the monopolization of Bitcoin mining -- I'm sorry to say, but ever since the arrival of Scrypt ASICs, Litecoin and Bitcoin have been more or less in the same boat. Currently Litecoin's hashrate distribution looks far worse than that of Bitcoin actually. Holy shit. So much for "harsh truth"

Again, you are not telling the whole truth

Wtf, is there anyone over here who actually does? If Litecoin miners had that complete control over the network as you claim they have, why Segwit and Lightening Network had been activated in Litecoin without much ado and beating around the bush, unlike what we have seen with Bitcoin and will likely see again in the nearest future? Regarding the myth of faster settlements, it seems that it has more to do with the myth of orphaned blocks flooding the network due to faster block generation times. But that's remained only that, i.e. just a myth or an urban legend of sorts. As I said already, Litecoin has been around for quite some time by now, the point which you chose to ignore somehow in your reply

I'm not trying to misinform in any way and I definitely don't know the whole truth, whatever the definition of that may be; so feel free to correct me or supplement information that I may have missed. That's what public discourse is for.

So, about your statements:

If Litecoin miners had that complete control over the network as you claim they have, why Segwit and Lightening Network had been activated in Litecoin without much ado and beating around the bush, unlike what we have seen with Bitcoin and will likely see again in the nearest future?

I was not talking politics, merely numbers. Compared to Bitcoin, the hashrate distribution of Litecoin unfortunately doesn't look so good right now:

https://www.litecoinpool.org/pools
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools


Regarding politics, my educated guesses why there was less friction with the Segwit deployment on Litecoin would be as follows:

1) No noteworthy competing developer team that would continue to maintain a non-Segwit Litecoin fork.
2) Smaller community, leading to less of of a divide and a smaller chance of splinter groups. Let's not forget that it's not just miners that oppose Segwit.
3) Less economic relevance (for the moment being), leading to a lesser incentive of leading a battle against Segwit on Litecoin.

Apart from that, let's not forget that Segwit got activated after all. A Segwit-less altcoin emerged, whose value is reflected by the choice of the community to stand by Bitcoin Core. The miners are kept in check by market forces which reflect the sentiment of the Bitcoin community.

With Segwit2x it won't be much different. Miners alone by themselves can't decide to simply change the network rules. They need a supporting developer team and the approval of at least part of the community, lest they mine a worthless alt coin. What complicates matters with Segwit2x is that in this case there's also significant  support by Bitcoin companies.

So in concusion, Segwit vs big-blocks never was simply about miners vs users. There are many economic actors involved, one of them being the community itself. In the end people still vote with their wallets.

Regarding the myth of faster settlements, it seems that it has more to do with the myth of orphaned blocks flooding the network due to faster block generation times.

I was not referring to increased orphan rates, but rather to computation attacks by forcing a double-spend via a secretly mined longer chain. However upon deeper research I found that the matter is not as clear-cut as I initially thought, meaning that faster settlement may indeed be possible without a compromise in security. I didn't find any conclusive information on what Litecoin confirmation count equals the security of Bitcoin confirmations however. Like you said, there's a lot of half-truth out there.

As I said already, Litecoin has been around for quite some time by now, the point which you chose to ignore somehow in your reply

Because Litecoin's lifetime is irrelevant to the argument. I never argued that Litecoin is not working or that a short block interval is a bad thing in itself.

[deisik]

Again, you are not telling the whole truth

Wtf, is there anyone over here who actually does? If Litecoin miners had that complete control over the network as you claim they have, why Segwit and Lightening Network had been activated in Litecoin without much ado and beating around the bush, unlike what we have seen with Bitcoin and will likely see again in the nearest future? Regarding the myth of faster settlements, it seems that it has more to do with the myth of orphaned blocks flooding the network due to faster block generation times. But that's remained only that, i.e. just a myth or an urban legend of sorts. As I said already, Litecoin has been around for quite some time by now, the point which you chose to ignore somehow in your reply

I'm not trying to misinform in any way and I definitely don't know the whole truth, whatever the definition of that may be; so feel free to correct me or supplement information that I may have missed. That's what public discourse is for.

So, about your statements:

If Litecoin miners had that complete control over the network as you claim they have, why Segwit and Lightening Network had been activated in Litecoin without much ado and beating around the bush, unlike what we have seen with Bitcoin and will likely see again in the nearest future?

I was not talking politics, merely numbers. Compared to Bitcoin, the hashrate distribution of Litecoin unfortunately doesn't look so good right now:

https://www.litecoinpool.org/pools
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

Regarding politics, my educated guesses why there was less friction with the Segwit deployment on Litecoin would be as follows:

1) No noteworthy competing developer team that would continue to maintain a non-Segwit Litecoin fork.
2) Smaller community, leading to less of of a divide and a smaller chance of splinter groups. Let's not forget that it's not just miners that oppose Segwit.
3) Less economic relevance (for the moment being), leading to a lesser incentive of leading a battle against Segwit on Litecoin

Well, this is all theory, your theory

In practice, though, some influential miners (specifically, the infamous Jihan and his minions) were opposed to SegWit activation and had actually tried to walk the path they took with Bitcoin. But here comes the difference between Litecoin and Bitcoin. Despite the hashrate distribution of Litecoin being somewhat skewed (which you seem to be hell-bent on pointing out), that didn't make miners revolt against SegWit and Lightning Network (the latter is far from being activated in Bitcoin, just in case). How come? Because Litecoin has an active leader, Charlie Lee, with Satoshi Nakamoto hiding somewhere. And as far as I know, he made them an offer which they couldn't refuse. This is something you failed to mention

[HeRetiK]

Again, you are not telling the whole truth

Wtf, is there anyone over here who actually does? If Litecoin miners had that complete control over the network as you claim they have, why Segwit and Lightening Network had been activated in Litecoin without much ado and beating around the bush, unlike what we have seen with Bitcoin and will likely see again in the nearest future? Regarding the myth of faster settlements, it seems that it has more to do with the myth of orphaned blocks flooding the network due to faster block generation times. But that's remained only that, i.e. just a myth or an urban legend of sorts. As I said already, Litecoin has been around for quite some time by now, the point which you chose to ignore somehow in your reply

I'm not trying to misinform in any way and I definitely don't know the whole truth, whatever the definition of that may be; so feel free to correct me or supplement information that I may have missed. That's what public discourse is for.

So, about your statements:

If Litecoin miners had that complete control over the network as you claim they have, why Segwit and Lightening Network had been activated in Litecoin without much ado and beating around the bush, unlike what we have seen with Bitcoin and will likely see again in the nearest future?

I was not talking politics, merely numbers. Compared to Bitcoin, the hashrate distribution of Litecoin unfortunately doesn't look so good right now:

https://www.litecoinpool.org/pools
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

Regarding politics, my educated guesses why there was less friction with the Segwit deployment on Litecoin would be as follows:

1) No noteworthy competing developer team that would continue to maintain a non-Segwit Litecoin fork.
2) Smaller community, leading to less of of a divide and a smaller chance of splinter groups. Let's not forget that it's not just miners that oppose Segwit.
3) Less economic relevance (for the moment being), leading to a lesser incentive of leading a battle against Segwit on Litecoin

Well, this is all theory, your theory

In practice, though, some influential miners (specifically, the infamous Jihan and his minions) were opposed to SegWit activation and had actually tried to walk the path they took with Bitcoin. But here comes the difference between Litecoin and Bitcoin. Despite the hashrate distribution of Litecoin being somewhat skewed (which you seem to be hell-bent on pointing out), that didn't make miners revolt against SegWit and Lightning Network (the latter is far from being activated in Bitcoin, just in case). How come? Because Litecoin has an active leader, Charlie Lee, with Satoshi Nakamoto hiding somewhere. And as far as I know, he made them an offer which they couldn't refuse. This is something you failed to mention

Of course it's theory, that's why I prefer hashrate numbers to wild political conjecture.

What Jihan did was seeing a divided community and trying to take advantage of it. Mining monopolization had little to do with it. In practice Bitcoin still managed to activate Segwit.

What was Charlie Lee's offer that they couldn't refuse?

[deisik]

What was Charlie Lee's offer that they couldn't refuse?

I don't really know

Back in the day I had yet been interested in Litecoin, so I read it somewhere around here that Jihan and Co were going to massively oppose Segwit and Lightning Network activation in Litecoin too but I didn't look into details of that (anyone knowledgeable is welcome to chime in on this). Then the rumor surfaced than Charlie had talked to them, and they agreed to accept these proposals. I guess no one knows for sure what was that (apart from the parties involved, obviously) but the fact is that there was no major opposition to activation of these updates (unlike what we saw in Bitcoin). Other than that, SegWit itself is pretty inconsequential, it is the latter of these two updates that actually counts

[rext]

The newly implemented atomic chain swap between btc and ltc means basically ltc = btc in terms of usage right? Anywhere that accept btc, I could just use ltc and it gets auto swapped to btc.

So I'm thinking since ltc=btc now, shouldn't ltc price actually become 25% of btc price given that ltc max cap is 4x of btc?

I think it's not really accurate, or if possible, too hard to do with what we can do in the present.