Topic: Litecoin segwit activation. What happened? (Read 7090 times)
What is Satoshi's vision and how does that align with Charlie Lee's vision? What I know is Satoshi is for onchain transactions not something like what Charlie wants to do with Litecoin. Charlie Lee wants a payment layer on top of Litecoin. If he was developing that for Bitcoin, Satoshi will have none of it.
To all BU shills, for the last time, there'll be a balance with LN and litecoin transaction fees there. Wake up.
If the litecoin fees are too low, it likely won't make sense to keep large LN channels open as that also means there's very little to be gained from routing fees. You do need a secure computer online to route LN payments through your channels, even if keeping the channels open doesn't require an online computer all the time.
When litecoin fees are high, there's a large incentive to optimize your channels and make sure they're open and active (that is routing payments) so that you can profit from offering people cheaper payments than litecoin itself. This means more and more people will pay through LN and transaction pressure on litecoin blocks will drop, causing the fee to drop too.
Between these two, there'll be a point of balance that'll be the actual fee level in litecoin. This is the natural market balance that will form.
If the litecoin fees are too low, it likely won't make sense to keep large LN channels open as that also means there's very little to be gained from routing fees. You do need a secure computer online to route LN payments through your channels, even if keeping the channels open doesn't require an online computer all the time.
When litecoin fees are high, there's a large incentive to optimize your channels and make sure they're open and active (that is routing payments) so that you can profit from offering people cheaper payments than litecoin itself. This means more and more people will pay through LN and transaction pressure on litecoin blocks will drop, causing the fee to drop too.
Between these two, there'll be a point of balance that'll be the actual fee level in litecoin. This is the natural market balance that will form.
The problem with that is that it doesn't allow miners to squeeze all transactions in a small block, and have users fight for the little room there is to be able to move their funds. Unlimited blocks give you the same problem, but then, unlimited blocks is just a lure to get very limited blocks and no segwit.
We all know, that something with a hard limit on its supply (like the 21 million coins in bitcoin) can give rise to very high prices. A hard limit on the amount of transactions will lead also to very high prices (fees). But then, there shouldn't be any other way to transact like off-chain.
To the ideal to rip off users, are:
1) small blocks
2) LN
We then have two types of industrials that get the money the users are paying: miners and LN banks. LN banks, most probably, will be exchanges, which have big wallets and can keep open a lot of channels to their customers and between them. They are the natural LN hubs. Exchanges, under LN, are going to become the new Citybank. They are already in the process of becoming regularized as a genuine bank.
The small blocks make that there are huge fees for on-chain transactions and settlements of LN channels. LN makes that nobody complains, until most are locked up in channels to a few banking hubs. Then, these banking hubs can increase their LN fees almost to the level of the (very high) settlement fees on chain. You are locked in, in any case, so you better pay, because otherwise you have to pay the settlement fee, if ever your settlement transaction can get through.
Miners can determine the amount of spam needed to squeeze the on-chain blocks and fees to significant heights, and then the users are at the merci of the LN banks. So, essentially, you open a LN link to your exchange/bank like you open a bank account, you sign a contract and all that, and then you can use it. The settlement would also most probably happen with a lot of paperwork. Like with a normal bank.
Miners are keeping off LN for the moment, because they don't see why they should share the lucrative squeezing of the fee market with newcomers in the field, that *don't need so much investment in ASICS*. Miners are put on the losing side of control, because LN banks can swiftly become banks, or leave the space by simply selling off their stash. Miners are invested longer term in the coin with their hardware. They don't know how the distribution key of the money they suck off users will be distributed between them and the LN banks/exchanges.
Now getting close to 60% and higher 
LN, in my opinion, is only a micro-transaction/micropayment solution. It is the same thing like a prepaid card - only that the prepaid card issuer cannot run away with your money. At least not that easy.
So I consider LN an improvement to centralized wallet-to-wallet transactions (e.g. coinbase wallet to other coinbase wallet).
The good thing is that we have plenty of altcoins that can test different scenarios between the extremes "LN for nearly all transactions" and "only on-chain transactions".
Apart from that, Segwit would also facilitate Atomic Cross Chain transfers - no more shady exchanges (Cryptsy!) needed. That would immensely benefit all altcoins out there.
PS: Litecoin adoption seems to have stalled a bit but is pretty good (17-19%) as it's only the second activation period and there is plenty of time still.
So I consider LN an improvement to centralized wallet-to-wallet transactions (e.g. coinbase wallet to other coinbase wallet).
The good thing is that we have plenty of altcoins that can test different scenarios between the extremes "LN for nearly all transactions" and "only on-chain transactions".
Apart from that, Segwit would also facilitate Atomic Cross Chain transfers - no more shady exchanges (Cryptsy!) needed. That would immensely benefit all altcoins out there.
PS: Litecoin adoption seems to have stalled a bit but is pretty good (17-19%) as it's only the second activation period and there is plenty of time still.
To all BU shills, for the last time, there'll be a balance with LN and litecoin transaction fees there. Wake up.
If the litecoin fees are too low, it likely won't make sense to keep large LN channels open as that also means there's very little to be gained from routing fees. You do need a secure computer online to route LN payments through your channels, even if keeping the channels open doesn't require an online computer all the time.
When litecoin fees are high, there's a large incentive to optimize your channels and make sure they're open and active (that is routing payments) so that you can profit from offering people cheaper payments than litecoin itself. This means more and more people will pay through LN and transaction pressure on litecoin blocks will drop, causing the fee to drop too.
Between these two, there'll be a point of balance that'll be the actual fee level in litecoin. This is the natural market balance that will form.
If the litecoin fees are too low, it likely won't make sense to keep large LN channels open as that also means there's very little to be gained from routing fees. You do need a secure computer online to route LN payments through your channels, even if keeping the channels open doesn't require an online computer all the time.
When litecoin fees are high, there's a large incentive to optimize your channels and make sure they're open and active (that is routing payments) so that you can profit from offering people cheaper payments than litecoin itself. This means more and more people will pay through LN and transaction pressure on litecoin blocks will drop, causing the fee to drop too.
Between these two, there'll be a point of balance that'll be the actual fee level in litecoin. This is the natural market balance that will form.
I don't know shit about theymos other than he's polarizing and has a shit ton of Bitcoin. I do know a little about Charlie Lee, enough to know his dedication to satoshi's vision. So while there may be theoretical shortcomings of blockchain solutions that may materialize by latent bad actors, it will still be an important step to a more robust system.
You should pray for the LN to be implemented so you can exploit it and be rich.
LN will only make the Bankers that collect all of the Fees Rich.
No one else will profit enough to matter.
Bitcoin is not PoS, nor should it ever be.
Cool , you can think for yourself.
You decided you did not agree with everything Theymos said.
How can you fault me for not agreeing with the Pro segwitters.
Especially if you can use Logic, everything I am saying rings truthful.
You should pray for the LN to be implemented so you can exploit it and be rich.
Bitcoin is not PoS, nor should it ever be.
Bitcoin is not PoS, nor should it ever be.
It didn't even take a 10 second relationship with google to quell your fear of fractional reserve and the LN.
Quote from: theymos
It's not possible with Lightning. For each satoshi on the Lightning network, at least one satoshi on the Bitcoin network is tied up and unspendable. Some other hypothetical off-chain systems could allow for fractional reserve. A sidechain could be fractional-reserve in the sense that there are more "bitcoins" on the sidechain than can actually be transferred back to Bitcoin proper, though typically this will mean that the sidechain's security has somehow failed.
I see the problem , you lack the ability to think for yourself and need Google.
Kind of proves
Pro Segit Supporters (No Brain whatsoever)
Theymos admits that other side chains can allow fractional reserves,
LN is only 1 software update from also allowing fractional reserves for the LN designers.
LN is a side chain , so think about it.
How do you Counterfeit LTC on LN.
Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 5000 LTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 5000 LTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 6 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 5000 LTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 5000 LTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 5000 LTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)
LTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.
Study History, this is exactly how banking was started
LN is offchain , meaning it can never actually be a LTC, when can only truly exist ONCHAIN.
LN NOTES are only a Representation of the value of a LTC Nothing Else.
Class Dismissed!
LN NOTES are only a Representation of the value of a LTC Nothing Else.
Quote from: kiklo
LN freezes the amount of LTC on the LTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a LTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional LTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the LTC frozen on the LTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
LN Coins = Notes
LTC = Gold
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a LTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional LTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the LTC frozen on the LTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
Quote
In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.
LN = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)LN Coins = Notes
LTC = Gold
Class Dismissed!
How to Steal LN Funds from the LN WhitePaper itself.
Quote
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51
Page 49 thru 51
Quote
Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Quote
9.2 Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Quote
9.3 Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
oine and requiring additional signatures from security services.
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
oine and requiring additional signatures from security services.
FYI:
Since you have chosen Theymos for your authority figure.
Do you agree with his idea of adding PoS to Bitcoin?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/idea-for-an-altcoin-3-way-hybrid-pow-1654457
Groestlcoin has already activated Segwit , where is LN supporting them,
LN is not connecting with Groestlcoin, because all they really care about is BTC.
LN is not connecting with Groestlcoin, because all they really care about is BTC.
what is groestlcoin.. never heard of it and i would think many others haven't either..
LN could work with them , since they foolishly activated segwit.
Then after LN destroys them you would all know the truth.
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/groestlcoin/
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anngrs-groestlcoin-1st-to-activate-segwit-building-lightning-network-525926
http://www.groestlcoin.org/
http://www.groestlcoin.org/forum/
It didn't even take a 10 second relationship with google to quell your fear of fractional reserve and the LN.
Quote from: theymos
It's not possible with Lightning. For each satoshi on the Lightning network, at least one satoshi on the Bitcoin network is tied up and unspendable. Some other hypothetical off-chain systems could allow for fractional reserve. A sidechain could be fractional-reserve in the sense that there are more "bitcoins" on the sidechain than can actually be transferred back to Bitcoin proper, though typically this will mean that the sidechain's security has somehow failed.
Are you a miner or operate a large scale mining pool? Why do you care so much? Also, Low Transaction fees is a fundamental goal crypto-currency, are you for higher transaction fees?
And I did answer question, I stated that your immediate concern of your primary argument is far-field and should carry no bearing to the immediate integration of segwit. Maybe a decade downstream or more when block rewards are 1.5265BTC / 3.125 LTC, there's a discussion, but segwit will have served its purpose (whether it succeeds or not) and there will be another evolutionary blockchain element that will fulfill shortcomings at that time.
And I did answer question, I stated that your immediate concern of your primary argument is far-field and should carry no bearing to the immediate integration of segwit. Maybe a decade downstream or more when block rewards are 1.5265BTC / 3.125 LTC, there's a discussion, but segwit will have served its purpose (whether it succeeds or not) and there will be another evolutionary blockchain element that will fulfill shortcomings at that time.
Why do you want segwit & LN activated , where it can put the miners out of work and give control of the coin completely to LN.
I am against LN completely controlling a coin with an offchain fractional reserves style system, if I wanted fraud banking like the current system, I would have stayed out of crypto.
Segwit will fail and the miners will keep their jobs and we keep those asshole bankers out of crypto.
Observe
Segwit miner support (percentage of segwit blocks signaling within the current activation period) 261 (18.91%)
Litecoin miner are changing their vote , & voting against segwit
Segwit miner support within the last 24 hours (last 576 blocks) 97 (16.84%)
Are you a miner or operate a large scale mining pool? Why do you care so much? Also, Low Transaction fees is a fundamental goal crypto-currency, are you for higher transaction fees?
And I did answer question, I stated that your immediate concern of your primary argument is far-field and should carry no bearing to the immediate integration of segwit. Maybe a decade downstream or more when block rewards are 1.5265BTC / 3.125 LTC, there's a discussion, but segwit will have served its purpose (whether it succeeds or not) and there will be another evolutionary blockchain element that will fulfill shortcomings at that time.
And I did answer question, I stated that your immediate concern of your primary argument is far-field and should carry no bearing to the immediate integration of segwit. Maybe a decade downstream or more when block rewards are 1.5265BTC / 3.125 LTC, there's a discussion, but segwit will have served its purpose (whether it succeeds or not) and there will be another evolutionary blockchain element that will fulfill shortcomings at that time.
without segwit and L.N. litecoin will slowly die anyway 
... it is not profitable to mine, However ! it does have a secure network and it is faster than btc ( along with many others )
the could be ! saviour ! ... segwit / L.N.
Keep btc politics out.......................Let Litecoin make its own choice and walk its own path... its evolution, its advancing crypto... lets see where it takes us
litecoin miners currently have nothing to lose ( price / ratio consistently dropping , block rewards halving, difficulty rising ) But these miners have lots to gain
if it doesn't workout then at least its been tried, so miners move to a more profitable coin to mine .. as miners do !
the only loser if it works out is btc losing yet more market to an ALT ( or is this the problem )
... it is not profitable to mine, However ! it does have a secure network and it is faster than btc ( along with many others )the could be ! saviour ! ... segwit / L.N.
Keep btc politics out.......................Let Litecoin make its own choice and walk its own path... its evolution, its advancing crypto... lets see where it takes us
litecoin miners currently have nothing to lose ( price / ratio consistently dropping , block rewards halving, difficulty rising ) But these miners have lots to gain
if it doesn't workout then at least its been tried, so miners move to a more profitable coin to mine .. as miners do !
the only loser if it works out is btc losing yet more market to an ALT ( or is this the problem )
Groestlcoin has already activated Segwit , where is LN supporting them,
LN is not connecting with Groestlcoin, because all they really care about is BTC.
what is groestlcoin.. never heard of it and i would think many others haven't either.. however litecoin is pretty well known and used
but you did make one thing very clear to me
.......................................
all they really care about is btc litecoin is not btc... keep btc politics out
and another link you posted up.. with concerns..
( http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/02/17/charlie-lee-potentially-enforcing-litecoin-segwit-activation-bitcoiners-concerned/ )
whether charlie wants the best for ltc or has sold out .. it should be activated and seen, as its only some of the btc brigade and their influence on pools that wants it stopped.. so all they care about is btc which must mean its bad for them.
so it must be good for us the litecoin miners
litecoin ,segwit activation.... bitcoiners concerned.......... again litecoin is not bitcoin.. keep the bitcoin politics out ( are bitcoiners worried that it might work or does work, if it works its bad for btc, yet another nail , its not being accepted on bitcoin network so should not concern them.... and if it doesn't work then fine its of no loss to the btc crowd, having been tried and tested the litecoin miners proudly move to a profitable coin to mine, because we all know its not profitable to mine ltc. ( unless you have free electricity ).. so its not about the money for most ltc miners, its about evolution and freedom
anything thing that maybe good ( increased user base, increased investments, market price, speed, etc ) for another coin / network is bad for btc ( btc loses market share ) ( btc bleeds ) and as you have clearly pointed out... its all about btc..
again you make your point/view very clear... its about bitcoins and nothing else..
let litecoin do its own thing, walk its own path.. let litecoin be free from btc politics, let litecoin activate segwit, lets see how it works out.... its litecoins freedom of choice... or are btc controllers really that worried.
I was very sure that segwit and LN was great for LTC before reading all of this.
However now...
More worrying is how could one person (even the the father of LTC) force changes through? seems impossible?
Even if he owns millions and millions of them this is not a pos coin so that will not help him would it?
Could he be considering POS to mitigate the issue kiklo mentions with no fees to keep LTC going after pow rewards run out?
Who here can speculate how this can even be done without miners going for it?
How can anything be altered at all without consensus approval through upgrading to the new wallets?
Why does he want algo change after all the investment in scrypt asics?
I like LTC and this is interesting times. I only hope LTC is not going to get destroyed over this.
However now...
More worrying is how could one person (even the the father of LTC) force changes through? seems impossible?
Even if he owns millions and millions of them this is not a pos coin so that will not help him would it?
Could he be considering POS to mitigate the issue kiklo mentions with no fees to keep LTC going after pow rewards run out?
Who here can speculate how this can even be done without miners going for it?
How can anything be altered at all without consensus approval through upgrading to the new wallets?
Why does he want algo change after all the investment in scrypt asics?
I like LTC and this is interesting times. I only hope LTC is not going to get destroyed over this.
without segwit and L.N. litecoin will slowly die anyway ... it is not profitable to mine, However ! it does have a secure network and it is faster than btc ( along with many others )
the could be ! saviour ! ... segwit / L.N.
Keep btc politics out.......................Let Litecoin make its own choice and walk its own path... its evolution, its advancing crypto... lets see where it takes us
litecoin miners currently have nothing to lose ( price / ratio consistently dropping , block rewards halving, difficulty rising ) But these miners have lots to gain
if it doesn't workout then at least its been tried, so miners move to a more profitable coin to mine .. as miners do !
the only loser if it works out is btc losing yet more market to an ALT ( or is this the problem )
... it is not profitable to mine, However ! it does have a secure network and it is faster than btc ( along with many others )the could be ! saviour ! ... segwit / L.N.
Keep btc politics out.......................Let Litecoin make its own choice and walk its own path... its evolution, its advancing crypto... lets see where it takes us
litecoin miners currently have nothing to lose ( price / ratio consistently dropping , block rewards halving, difficulty rising ) But these miners have lots to gain
if it doesn't workout then at least its been tried, so miners move to a more profitable coin to mine .. as miners do !
the only loser if it works out is btc losing yet more market to an ALT ( or is this the problem )
Groestlcoin has already activated Segwit , where is LN supporting them,
LN is not connecting with Groestlcoin, because all they really care about is BTC.
Kiklo, I'm not a segwit evangelist but I think you have to put it into context as a natural evolution of blickchain technology with specific focus on widespread global adoption. Segwit is not the holy grail, but it has its utility and LTC stepping up to the forefront is good for crypto. If this can't be seen then you're politically compromised. If your an opponent and it doesn't better serve crypto, then it will have empirically shown itself to not do so, and the next trial of technology will move forward. Also, the mining rewards will be relative. If BTC continues to grow, aside from lock rewards, tx fees may go up an order of magnitude due to traffic and value against the USD, so I think the argument of miner fees being compromised is farfield.
Also, Charlie stated that segwit maybe activated regardless of 75% support, in any regard I've got 50LTC TO WAGER IF YOUR UP FOR IT.
Also, Charlie stated that segwit maybe activated regardless of 75% support, in any regard I've got 50LTC TO WAGER IF YOUR UP FOR IT.
Save your Wager and give it to the LTC miners you are putting out of business by pushing segwit.
They are going to need it.
Because you did not answer the question,
how are they going to make money when all of the transactions are on LN?
Why are you avoiding the bet? I thought you were so confident that Segwit won't be activated in Litecoin? Maybe you're just trolling because you have a lot of free time.
Your pussy ass butt buddy, would not accept even 1 LTC bet.
Alright pussy boy ,
You want a bet , to hell with Crypto ,
Let's Bet 20 Million US $ , PM me your name & address & Contact Info and I will have my Attorney draw up the Papers.
And your ass had better be able to show the money shithead!
The litecoin community has said that it will be surely activated because they were so sure at that least 75% of the miners will cooperate. What happened?
IIRC Same thing happened to bitcoin before. Bitcoin community was euphoric about SegWit and everyone thought that LN and SegWit will be reality withing a month after signalling will start.
I suspect that it is tht bad press and propaganda of bitcoin anti SegWit front ebbed away that initial enthusiasm of LTC community.
Well, I thought that LTC users form more unitary community, maybe I was wrong.
without segwit and L.N. litecoin will slowly die anyway ... it is not profitable to mine, However ! it does have a secure network and it is faster than btc ( along with many others )
the could be ! saviour ! ... segwit / L.N.
Keep btc politics out.......................Let Litecoin make its own choice and walk its own path... its evolution, its advancing crypto... lets see where it takes us
litecoin miners currently have nothing to lose ( price / ratio consistently dropping , block rewards halving, difficulty rising ) But these miners have lots to gain
if it doesn't workout then at least its been tried, so miners move to a more profitable coin to mine .. as miners do !
the only loser if it works out is btc losing yet more market to an ALT ( or is this the problem )
... it is not profitable to mine, However ! it does have a secure network and it is faster than btc ( along with many others )the could be ! saviour ! ... segwit / L.N.
Keep btc politics out.......................Let Litecoin make its own choice and walk its own path... its evolution, its advancing crypto... lets see where it takes us
litecoin miners currently have nothing to lose ( price / ratio consistently dropping , block rewards halving, difficulty rising ) But these miners have lots to gain
if it doesn't workout then at least its been tried, so miners move to a more profitable coin to mine .. as miners do !
the only loser if it works out is btc losing yet more market to an ALT ( or is this the problem )
FYI:
Even after the LTC miners refuse to activate Segwit , it is not over, which shows Charlie has taken a payoff to shit the Litecoin miners.
http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/02/17/charlie-lee-potentially-enforcing-litecoin-segwit-activation-bitcoiners-concerned/
FYI:
I guess Litecoin is going to have to be renamed CharlieCoin, if he pulls off a FORCED ACTIVATION!!
FYI2: Charlie is planning to Change the Proof of Work and Kill all of your Scrypt Miners, and make you Change PoW Algorithms .
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5uf679/charlie_lee_people_dont_realize_what_segwit_is/ddtrbxe/
Even after the LTC miners refuse to activate Segwit , it is not over, which shows Charlie has taken a payoff to shit the Litecoin miners.
http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/02/17/charlie-lee-potentially-enforcing-litecoin-segwit-activation-bitcoiners-concerned/
Quote
To make matters even worse, Charlie Lee mentioned how there as an alternative plan.
Even if there is no miner consensus, he can still force SegWit activation for litecoin.
Albeit Charlie Lee did not elaborate on this statement, it is a very worrisome thought.
No one knows for sure how a soft fork would be forced upon the community, though.
Then again, it is not something we should ever hope to experience either.
Even if there is no miner consensus, he can still force SegWit activation for litecoin.
Albeit Charlie Lee did not elaborate on this statement, it is a very worrisome thought.
No one knows for sure how a soft fork would be forced upon the community, though.
Then again, it is not something we should ever hope to experience either.
FYI:
I guess Litecoin is going to have to be renamed CharlieCoin, if he pulls off a FORCED ACTIVATION!!
FYI2: Charlie is planning to Change the Proof of Work and Kill all of your Scrypt Miners, and make you Change PoW Algorithms .
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5uf679/charlie_lee_people_dont_realize_what_segwit_is/ddtrbxe/
Quote
If you are talking about changing the POW then I have to notice it is a risky, expensive and difficult-to-coordinate strategy that may not work.
For one, the hard fork could fail to gain consensus.
For another, even if the POW changes, large miners are arguably the best positioned people to quickly deploy hardware that executes the new POW
For one, the hard fork could fail to gain consensus.
For another, even if the POW changes, large miners are arguably the best positioned people to quickly deploy hardware that executes the new POW
Jump to: