While many a crapcoin might be decimated, Lightning could actually prove to be quite the opposite of the hangman for some altcoins if their developers are clever about it. If any altcoin also chooses to implement Lightning, then it's possible to implement Atomic Cross Chain Transactions, meaning you could trade any altcoin that supports Lightning with Bitcoin, but without having to deposit any funds with a centralised exchange. In practice, timelocks would effectively freeze the balance for both buyer and seller on each blockchain while you make the trade, then when both parties have received their chosen currency, both payments would be settled on their respective blockchains with their new owners. Truly decentralised exchange, with no "trusted" third parties taking a cut in fees, requesting identification, getting shut down by regulators, or losing their customers' funds.
I'm looking forward to LN being the hangman of the Exchanges, which are a sad relic of the traditional finance sector. That's a far loftier and noble goal in my view.
Topic: Hangman of the altcoins? (Read 189 times)
The news about the LN (lighting network) on main network of Bitcoin are connected with your its current high movement and with the altcoins correction?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
As I've said elsewhere, I think it will take significant market share from those altcoins that are nothing more than payment protocols with faster confirmations and lower on-chain fees. That's a significant sector of coins.
A well-functioning Lightning Network could make coins like Litecoin obsolete if they don't re-brand with new use cases. I suspect that many altcoin developers will re-brand and pursue features that Bitcoin lacks: governance structure, node incentives (LN rewards for typical users are likely to be very low), alternative exponential scaling mechanisms like tree chains, consensus sharding and DAGs, and other full-service use cases like blockchain anonymity and decentralized exchange.
Yeah i suspect too that some alts will become obsolete, mainly those that just offer more speed in transations and low fees. I just do not know what the developers of these alts will do about it.
The alts that don't have any real utility will disappear. It's time for the market to clean out the turds.
The news about the LN (lighting network) on main network of Bitcoin are connected with your its current high movement and with the altcoins correction?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
As I've said elsewhere, I think it will take significant market share from those altcoins that are nothing more than payment protocols with faster confirmations and lower on-chain fees. That's a significant sector of coins.
A well-functioning Lightning Network could make coins like Litecoin obsolete if they don't re-brand with new use cases. I suspect that many altcoin developers will re-brand and pursue features that Bitcoin lacks: governance structure, node incentives (LN rewards for typical users are likely to be very low), alternative exponential scaling mechanisms like tree chains, consensus sharding and DAGs, and other full-service use cases like blockchain anonymity and decentralized exchange.
Yeah i suspect too that some alts will become obsolete, mainly those that just offer more speed in transations and low fees. I just do not know what the developers of these alts will do about it.
The news about the LN (lighting network) on main network of Bitcoin are connected with your its current high movement and with the altcoins correction?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
As I've said elsewhere, I think it will take significant market share from those altcoins that are nothing more than payment protocols with faster confirmations and lower on-chain fees. That's a significant sector of coins.
A well-functioning Lightning Network could make coins like Litecoin obsolete if they don't re-brand with new use cases. I suspect that many altcoin developers will re-brand and pursue features that Bitcoin lacks: governance structure, node incentives (LN rewards for typical users are likely to be very low), alternative exponential scaling mechanisms like tree chains, consensus sharding and DAGs, and other full-service use cases like blockchain anonymity and decentralized exchange.
If LN - with Bitcoin - works as expected, it will be surely the "hangman" for a lot of altcoins:
- Those that promise scaling with unsustainable models (like simple big blocks - BCH, I'm looking at you
)
- Many of those that are marketing themselves as an alternative to Bitcoin because of the "high fees" there, but have nothing else to offer.
But altcoins that have interesting and sound technical proposals that solve real problems and can't simply be adopted by Bitcoin, won't get affected, I think. Also altcoins with sound and novel DAG- and "chain-based"* scaling solutions (child-chains, pegging mechanisms for sidechains etc.) would still have a chance to succeed, because off-chain transactions are, in some aspects, inferior to on-chain transactions (they can be reverted in certain circumstances).
*"chain-based" scaling, for me, are models where the traditional transaction model - a transaction is confirmed by a validator that creates "blocks" - is preserved. It's different than "on-chain-scaling" - this word, for me, only implies models where everything occurs at the "main chain".
- Those that promise scaling with unsustainable models (like simple big blocks - BCH, I'm looking at you
)- Many of those that are marketing themselves as an alternative to Bitcoin because of the "high fees" there, but have nothing else to offer.
But altcoins that have interesting and sound technical proposals that solve real problems and can't simply be adopted by Bitcoin, won't get affected, I think. Also altcoins with sound and novel DAG- and "chain-based"* scaling solutions (child-chains, pegging mechanisms for sidechains etc.) would still have a chance to succeed, because off-chain transactions are, in some aspects, inferior to on-chain transactions (they can be reverted in certain circumstances).
*"chain-based" scaling, for me, are models where the traditional transaction model - a transaction is confirmed by a validator that creates "blocks" - is preserved. It's different than "on-chain-scaling" - this word, for me, only implies models where everything occurs at the "main chain".
good answer guy, thx for your contribution!
The more important thing is how the community accepts the centralization of funds when Lightning Network is implemented because that goes against what crypto began and was all about in the beginning.
That's not necessarily true. LN supporters say their system can be decentralized like a blockchain-supporting network, because transactions can route across multiple nodes instead of a few "hubs".We'll have to see how the network configures itself at the end - I think a bit more centralization will be inevitable, also because of the slight "trust problem" in LN I already mentioned. And many altcoins are much more centralized (e.g. DPOS coins, masternode-coins ... ) than LN will ever be ...
It could be but it will take a while to implement and alts will have their party until then. The more important thing is how the community accepts the centralization of funds when Lightning Network is implemented because that goes against what crypto began and was all about in the beginning.
If LN - with Bitcoin - works as expected, it will be surely the "hangman" for a lot of altcoins:
- Those that promise scaling with unsustainable models (like simple big blocks - BCH, I'm looking at you )
- Many of those that are marketing themselves as an alternative to Bitcoin because of the "high fees" there, but have nothing else to offer.
But altcoins that have interesting and sound technical proposals that solve real problems and can't simply be adopted by Bitcoin, won't get affected, I think. Also altcoins with sound and novel DAG- and "chain-based"* scaling solutions (child-chains, pegging mechanisms for sidechains etc.) would still have a chance to succeed, because off-chain transactions are, in some aspects, inferior to on-chain transactions (they can be reverted in certain circumstances).
*"chain-based" scaling, for me, are models where the traditional transaction model - a transaction is confirmed by a validator that creates "blocks" - is preserved. It's different than "on-chain-scaling" - this word, for me, only implies models where everything occurs at the "main chain".
- Those that promise scaling with unsustainable models (like simple big blocks - BCH, I'm looking at you
)- Many of those that are marketing themselves as an alternative to Bitcoin because of the "high fees" there, but have nothing else to offer.
But altcoins that have interesting and sound technical proposals that solve real problems and can't simply be adopted by Bitcoin, won't get affected, I think. Also altcoins with sound and novel DAG- and "chain-based"* scaling solutions (child-chains, pegging mechanisms for sidechains etc.) would still have a chance to succeed, because off-chain transactions are, in some aspects, inferior to on-chain transactions (they can be reverted in certain circumstances).
*"chain-based" scaling, for me, are models where the traditional transaction model - a transaction is confirmed by a validator that creates "blocks" - is preserved. It's different than "on-chain-scaling" - this word, for me, only implies models where everything occurs at the "main chain".
I think it's not just the bitcoin that has the lightning network, it's just a term. this happens because the rising price of bitcoin very quickly. caused by several things.
Hello everyone!
The news about the LN (lighting network) on main network of Bitcoin are connected with your its current high movement and with the altcoins correction?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
The news about the LN (lighting network) on main network of Bitcoin are connected with your its current high movement and with the altcoins correction?
Can be the LN the hangman for alts?
Jump to: