things would change if..
the big 12 exchanges.
and also the merchant tools (bitpay/coinbase) both started pushing for another currency.
EG the 300,000 merchants accepting bitcoin, started accepting another coin and not advertising bitcoin acceptance.
'value' in bitcoin would decline
Topic: Possible outcome if Bitcoin do not implement SegWit and LN - page 2. (Read 1770 times)
people will move to ethereum
if you do a thorough research
the industry view blockchain = ethereum
bitcoin = scam
if you do a thorough research
the industry view blockchain = ethereum
bitcoin = scam
As of right now the best we can do is enable segwit which has been extremely tested (as opposite to the bitcoin unlimited failure) then add in LN to scale at global levels. Everything else just doesn't work. We are lucky that BU was never accepted anywhere notable, otherwise we would have 2 bitcoin chains by now.
I think a major point is being missed.
Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.
Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity
Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.
Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity
the developer and miners of litecoin are clearly disagreeing with you on this two points
BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!
i disagree, better tech can not kill bitcoin, but better tech can become as big as bitcoin but the emphasis is always on the "better" part not an illusion of being "better" that is a big difference.
I'd like to see Bitcoin as a store of value and a hedge against inflation and banking failures. To be a store of value, it has to be easily tradeable, and I'd like to see it used as a means of payment for other virtual investments such as domain names. The improvements to core are moving Bitcoin in this direction imho.
I'd like to see a reduction in micro-payments that clutter the blockchain, faucets, ponzis and small change gambling sites don't help the growth of Bitcoin.
I'd like to see a reduction in micro-payments that clutter the blockchain, faucets, ponzis and small change gambling sites don't help the growth of Bitcoin.
I think a major point is being missed.
Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.
Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity
FYI:
Don't Bet on it!
Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.
Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity
FYI:
Don't Bet on it!
BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!
So as we all know for sure: The best testnet is PRODUCTION. Only valuable reason to use Litecoin here is to find out about bugs and if it really works....
Next would be LN on Litecoin - just for fun. I'd like to see BU there as well ...
I think a major point is being missed.
Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.
Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity
FYI:
Don't Bet on it!
Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.
Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity
FYI:
Don't Bet on it!
BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!
If an altcoin were to implement the LN and Segwit, no one would move over to it. There's is too much at stake. What would be more probable is a hard fork. But then again, think about it. Why a hard fork? We can do a soft one right now.
No one will adopt another altcoin to move to LN/SW. If we wanted to, we would just do the soft fork.
No one will adopt another altcoin to move to LN/SW. If we wanted to, we would just do the soft fork.
From technological point of view we have altcoins which are already superior to Bitcoin: they offer better scaleability, faster confirmations, are fully anonymous, are not pure POW but mix of POS/POW.
We have ASIC resistant coins which prevents coin from being centralized by huge mining farms and more. So why bitcoin is still used then?
BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!
We have ASIC resistant coins which prevents coin from being centralized by huge mining farms and more. So why bitcoin is still used then?
BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!
Blockstream did not dump all of that money and time into SegWit and the LN for it not to be used. People are already talking about the possibility that SegWit/LN could be adapted to be incorporated into other Alt coins, like LiteCoin.
So let's consider this for a moment :
LiteCoin or some other Alt coin use SegWit/LN and it is a huge success as a Peer-to-Peer payment network. Bitcoin users migrate to this Alt coin, because it is cheaper and faster.
So let's consider this for a moment :
LiteCoin or some other Alt coin use SegWit/LN and it is a huge success as a Peer-to-Peer payment network. Bitcoin users migrate to this Alt coin, because it is cheaper and faster.
STOP! Ok and why do you think BTC users will migrate to LTC? And also which BTC users are we talking about? The casual buy and hold types or the hardcore darknet market user types?
Your reasoning to support your hypothesis is asinine. BTC users will not migrate to a segwit activated altcoin just because.
ill raise a point 5.
if having LN on bitcoin.. will people realise that their funds are locked into X week contracts with penalties for payment hopping and decide, next time they will avoid hops and instead choose hubs, which are cheaper.
making users end up all using the same hub to reduce the hop fee's. turning the hub into paypal 2.0 by being the middle counterparty signing everyone's payment.. for a fee(lower then paying multiple hop fee's).
adding to that. after broadcasting the settlement transaction. having CLTV on the confirmed settlement forcing the confirmed tx to not be spendable for a further 3-5 days to allow the hub manager 3-5 days to submit a CSV revoke code. thus making it feel even more like paypal. which in laymens: 3-5 day balance unavailable and chargebacks.
will people see the benefit of bitcoin?? when it in reality, it ends up feeling the exact same as paypal/failed fiat banking system?
ill raise a point 6.
with people locked into LN hubs.. how many people think /care about the full network, if they are no longer actually transacting daily on the mainnet.
how many full node users will decide they see no benefit of being a full node because all they ever use is the LN node.
will LN actually kill off the full node count when people dont need to use main net daily?
if having LN on bitcoin.. will people realise that their funds are locked into X week contracts with penalties for payment hopping and decide, next time they will avoid hops and instead choose hubs, which are cheaper.
making users end up all using the same hub to reduce the hop fee's. turning the hub into paypal 2.0 by being the middle counterparty signing everyone's payment.. for a fee(lower then paying multiple hop fee's).
adding to that. after broadcasting the settlement transaction. having CLTV on the confirmed settlement forcing the confirmed tx to not be spendable for a further 3-5 days to allow the hub manager 3-5 days to submit a CSV revoke code. thus making it feel even more like paypal. which in laymens: 3-5 day balance unavailable and chargebacks.
will people see the benefit of bitcoin?? when it in reality, it ends up feeling the exact same as paypal/failed fiat banking system?
ill raise a point 6.
with people locked into LN hubs.. how many people think /care about the full network, if they are no longer actually transacting daily on the mainnet.
how many full node users will decide they see no benefit of being a full node because all they ever use is the LN node.
will LN actually kill off the full node count when people dont need to use main net daily?
Blockstream did not dump all of that money and time into SegWit and the LN for it not to be used. People are already talking about the possibility that SegWit/LN could be adapted to be incorporated into other Alt coins, like LiteCoin.
So let's consider this for a moment :
LiteCoin or some other Alt coin use SegWit/LN and it is a huge success as a Peer-to-Peer payment network. Bitcoin users migrate to this Alt coin, because it is cheaper and faster.
Bitcoin is left with a few hoarders that occasionally make transactions, but are mostly interested in it's store of value properties. The question is :
1. Will it still serve as a store of value, if it lost a large portion of it's active user base? < less demand = lower price >
2. Will the remaining users generate enough tx's to make it profitable for miners to continue mining in the future, when Block rewards become unprofitable and increased tx's is needed to generate enough miners fees for miners to continue mining?
3. Will Bitcoin increase the Block size, when they see this happening or will there be no need, because tx's will drop?
4. Less nodes = weaker decentralization. < People leaving >
What are your thoughts?
So let's consider this for a moment :
LiteCoin or some other Alt coin use SegWit/LN and it is a huge success as a Peer-to-Peer payment network. Bitcoin users migrate to this Alt coin, because it is cheaper and faster.
Bitcoin is left with a few hoarders that occasionally make transactions, but are mostly interested in it's store of value properties. The question is :
1. Will it still serve as a store of value, if it lost a large portion of it's active user base? < less demand = lower price >
2. Will the remaining users generate enough tx's to make it profitable for miners to continue mining in the future, when Block rewards become unprofitable and increased tx's is needed to generate enough miners fees for miners to continue mining?
3. Will Bitcoin increase the Block size, when they see this happening or will there be no need, because tx's will drop?
4. Less nodes = weaker decentralization. < People leaving >
What are your thoughts?
Jump to: