In cryptocurrency there is nothing impossible.
Maybe if success can also compete with Bitcoin.
But still, however, Bitcoin will still be like that cannot be replaced by Lightning Network or the like.
Topic: Can the lighting network eliminate most of the cryptocurrencies? (Read 245 times)
and also by using LN only the person on the channel can do the transaction (so you basically have to invite people into the channel)
It depends on who you are looking to transact with. If it concerns a store, then it's very likely that there are enough cheap routes leading to that store without you actually having an open connection with it. If you for example only need to conduct one single transaction with an unknown source, then it doesn't even make sense to use lightning network. In that case it's much faster to conduct an onchain transaction.
People transact most frequently with services, merchants, gambling sites, sites allowing you to earn Bitcoin, and so forth. All these entities will enjoy plenty of cheap routes that you can use without being directly connected to them.
Give it some time.
And if the answer is yes, what are the coin that will survive thanks to a technology that can be replaced from LN? I was thinking for example about the STRATIS coin, the platform is very particular and even if it's based on blockchain I think that it's very different from the blockchain of bitcoin, or not? Thank you, I'm not an expert on blockchain code 
no LN can not eliminate most of them
because LN requires to setup everything and this is not easy for beginners
and also by using LN only the person on the channel can do the transaction (so you basically have to invite people into the channel)
coins that can compete with bitcoin LN so far I guess only Nano
because Nano can easily challenge LN on :
1. Doesn't require pre-setup
2. Can send to anyone, not just select people
3. Doesn't have fees
Lighting network provide a good service they should turn strongly. Here is no chance to eliminate. It survive by service and performance. Crypto market is virtual and online so here you want to survive you should be better performance.
i don't know if it is Lighting network or something else, most of altcoins should be eliminated because there are a lot of altcoins in the market, and mosf of them are worthless. They put off the growing crypto markets.
regarding BCash they can implement LN (there are many other second layer payment channels like LN proposed in the past too) without SegWit but they have to code around the malleability problem and eventually fail because it is nearly impossible to do so.
my guess is that if they want to implement LN they will first do a soft fork and activate SegWit but they will never call it SegWit, instead they will run a campaign telling everyone it is not SegWit but a solution that their very wise decentralized developers created which is better
then add LN but never call it LN, they call it some new name and again say their wise devs created this themselves and is better
my guess is that if they want to implement LN they will first do a soft fork and activate SegWit but they will never call it SegWit, instead they will run a campaign telling everyone it is not SegWit but a solution that their very wise decentralized developers created which is better
then add LN but never call it LN, they call it some new name and again say their wise devs created this themselves and is better
you do realise that the core team have just introduced new op codes. and some of those opcodes WILL make transactions malleable again..
so i do laugh at the malleability defense.
we already needed the capacity increase and it was increased. the block size has not been 1 MB for nearly a year now. in fact there is no block size anymore, it is block weight. basically capacity has increased about 20-30% so far but it can go up to about 80% if more people start using SegWit.
hopefully we get something for aggregating signatures so the big transactions with many inputs can also become smaller and that will increase the capacity further.
...and the block size increases is the last resort which will eventually happen also.
hopefully we get something for aggregating signatures so the big transactions with many inputs can also become smaller and that will increase the capacity further.
...and the block size increases is the last resort which will eventually happen also.
that is where you are wrong
there is still a legacy limit of 1mb.
although they have twistd it around and hidden it you will never be able to have more than 1mb of legacy transactions..
and also the Segwit transactions partially sit in this same still 1mb existant area. meaning there is a limit to how many segwit transactions too.
there has been 0% legacy increase of limit
2.1x potential of segwit.. but only 1.1mb has ben the average increase
yep they say 4mb but actual utility of transactions per block will not be 4x
might be worth you reading code. with all their 4x fudging the numbers to hide the 1mb
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h#L13
heres a hint.. there would be no need for scale factors or other variables revolve around 4x or a quarter of.... if 1mb was irrelevant
think about it 4mb/4=??
also the stats about segwit is not 20-30%
read the small print of the stats page you got that from
a transaction of many LEGACY inputs but only 1 segwit input. is treated (wrongly) as a segwit tx.
meaning
if i had a tx of thoudands of legacy inputs and only 1 segwit input.
the stats page will call it a segwit tx.. BUT you will not see 2001 signatures in the "weight" area.. you will only see 1 signature in the weight area
Altcoins are just distraction, most development is around Bitcoin. Lighting network can eliminate unnecessary onchain transactions. Long way to go for Lighting network, but after most exchanges implement Lighting network to buy and sell Bitcoins, Lighting network moves out of experimental phase.
In fact, yes, lightning network could put in serious trouble all those coins that don't support it, remaining cut off.
Lightning Network is still in beta phase and they are using a completely different blockchain system, so there's no chance of a third party solution like this to wipe out all the cryptos. It is just there to make the transactions easy and fast.
Lighting network is existing as a third party payment sytem that is off - chain. Why worry anyways for its overtake? It still couldn't make progression as of yet from a secondary level mode since one year of its lauch. There is no need to worry on this at all.
Lighting has created a long-lasting expectation that we were tired of waiting. I do not even believe that the first times would be useful.
Here is how I see things though, Bitcoin cannot be the only Coin on the Crypto Planet. It would go against the principle of decentralization.
I don't think it has anything to do with decentralization. it is all about the "free market" and in that sense nothing would change with Lightning Network in my opinion. there will still be the same free market and if people choose to use altcoins then they will like so far that nobody ever chose altcoins for anything except for speculation and short term trading.
It could eliminate or seriously affect cryptocoins with thesame purpose (coins with faster transactions alone)...
However, Coins that wish to survive could change to something very unique and useful.
Here is how I see things though, Bitcoin cannot be the only Coin on the Crypto Planet. It would go against the principle of decentralization. You cannot simply eliminate other Countries because they share thesame characteristics with you. Every Coin will continue to have her President and Citizens.
The Cryptocurrency World will continue to be diverse and decentralized.
Those without purpose (the actual Scamcoins), those that refuse to develop/include some unique purposes and those that exist only to enrich the developers, will cease to exist.
However, Coins that wish to survive could change to something very unique and useful.
Here is how I see things though, Bitcoin cannot be the only Coin on the Crypto Planet. It would go against the principle of decentralization. You cannot simply eliminate other Countries because they share thesame characteristics with you. Every Coin will continue to have her President and Citizens.
The Cryptocurrency World will continue to be diverse and decentralized.
Those without purpose (the actual Scamcoins), those that refuse to develop/include some unique purposes and those that exist only to enrich the developers, will cease to exist.
all this time bitcoin has been the only useful currency that existed among cryptocurrencies but still altcoins existed. LN will only increase that usefulness by adding new things on top of already being used bitcoin. that won't change anything about altcoins they are still as useless as before and they continue being pump and dumps. while only a handful of them that are being buried by pump and dumps are good projects but go unnoticed because shitcoins like ethereum, ripple, bcash,... are taking all the attention.
I'm sure that if ever there is a need for an increase in block space, it will happen. It will only happen when the majority consistently shows that Bitcoin needs an upgrade, not because a minority of wealthy bullies want it.
we already needed the capacity increase and it was increased. the block size has not been 1 MB for nearly a year now. in fact there is no block size anymore, it is block weight. basically capacity has increased about 20-30% so far but it can go up to about 80% if more people start using SegWit.
hopefully we get something for aggregating signatures so the big transactions with many inputs can also become smaller and that will increase the capacity further.
...and the block size increases is the last resort which will eventually happen also.
devs have given up scaling mainnet.
There isn't even anything to scale. Why would you scale upwards if the block scarcity only goes through the roof during spam attacks or extremely short term usage peaks? Currently 1MB blocks are doing well enough.I'm sure that if ever there is a need for an increase in block space, it will happen. It will only happen when the majority consistently shows that Bitcoin needs an upgrade, not because a minority of wealthy bullies want it.
we already needed the capacity increase and it was increased. the block size has not been 1 MB for nearly a year now. in fact there is no block size anymore, it is block weight. basically capacity has increased about 20-30% so far but it can go up to about 80% if more people start using SegWit.
hopefully we get something for aggregating signatures so the big transactions with many inputs can also become smaller and that will increase the capacity further.
...and the block size increases is the last resort which will eventually happen also.
if you ask what coins will survive with LN, I think there are still a lot of good coin coins that will always last, and I'm sure that is definitely bitcoin and ethereum.
I think there are so many coins that are so good and strong in defense and what is especially certain is bitcoin but I think besides bitcoin there are still altcoins like ETH, Xrp, LTC, or DOGE.
Apparently no. Lithing network is just another substitute of the blockchain technology. This can be used for litecoins instead. But this cannot be used to eliminate crypto currencies in general. Right now, given their state, there isn't any possibility of that happening.
devs have given up scaling mainnet.
There isn't even anything to scale. Why would you scale upwards if the block scarcity only goes through the roof during spam attacks or extremely short term usage peaks? Currently 1MB blocks are doing well enough.I'm sure that if ever there is a need for an increase in block space, it will happen. It will only happen when the majority consistently shows that Bitcoin needs an upgrade, not because a minority of wealthy bullies want it.
You are constantly looking for ways to talk down on everything related to Bitcoin, and that for a very long period of time. You're either a troll of nature, or a paid shill (not sure what's worse).
i am someone that truly cares more about it then you do..
and thats because im not afraid to speak the truth of the bad parts. because highlightling the bad makes people aware of what needs to be done.
unlike some who say bitcoin is utopia. then when a fault is found .. bitcoin is utopia but you need clouded fortknox network because utopia is limited.
its only limited because greedy paid devs decided to keep limits
i would truly hate to live your life of floppy disk storage because your words are only a few kb's each and you cannot se passed your own nose to see that having extra BUFFER is helpful.
as for spam. that actually can be controlled.
as for fee's that can be controled to
as for validating/processing speed of tx's and blocks that too can be controlled.
but ull just say nah. let the devs stifle bitcoin and try getting people to use LN. even though LN has flaws, limitations and doesnt cover all usecases.
P.S
if you think bitcoin does not need to scale.. guess what..then i do not want to see you ever promote LN.. becasue ur saying LN is not needed
if you say bitcoin needs LN then your saying bitcoin needs to scale..
(yes you dug yourself a hole.. you cant have it both ways.. so man up.. admit bitcoin needs to scale or LN is not needed)
if you think bitcoin cant scale then you are saying you dont like bitcoin
if you prefer people to lock up value. play around offchain and then grab their value on a diferent network.. then you again are saying you dont lik bitcoin.
i do not hate bitcoin. i hate the core devs(the paid bully devs) that have truly ruined bitcoins ethos and unless those devs are not sorted out. then i will keep on telling the harsh truths that need to be told. i am not gonna sell people down a one way road to LN(banker street)
and i can guarantee you 99% of those selling LN as the solution have never even used it. nor have they even bothered to research it to even know what many devs who are programing it are saying about it
The answer is a straight no. Lithing network, cannot, in any possible way, eliminate crypto currencies. They are just here to create a hype for the altcoins and then make the creators of them profitable. This is just another alternative of the blockchain technology.
Jump to: