The impossible has been reached: LTC has 100% SW support! Can BTC ever do it? - page 2.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 25, 2017, 01:00:27 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 25, 2017, 12:56:46 AM

This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?

You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?

LN does not at all eliminate the need for bigger blocks and in fact the LN whitepaper says it will require larger blocks. Also, LN may be extremely useful but is not a complete scaling solution because it does not always fit the needs of people who want to use Bitcoin as peer to peer cash (because you first have to open channels, probably with centralized hubs).

So, I will ask you now: Were you unaware of this, or shilling for Blockstream/Core ?

It will eventually need larger blocks, but not as aggressively as with BU. I am also aware that bigger blocks alone, will never support a peer2peer cash payment network that would be able to compete with other existing payment networks that are out there. < Bigger block sizes bring more issues >

I am shilling for Bitmixer at the moment, so my opinion does not count according to non-sig members. ^smile^

I am actually not a big supporter of both of these implementations, because BU and Core both have some things I do not support, but at this stage I can see why Core might be better.

mackenzied

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Iranus on April 24, 2017, 02:39:38 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 02:12:14 PM

Impossible for BTC, Jihan Wu hates Core too much, it will never happen.

UASF is a User Activated Soft Fork. Basically, it's a mandatory activation. Therefore it could happen without 95% hashrate actually supporting SegWit (which realistically will never happen).

Not sure what you are saying, but I think anything should be supported by everyone. If it works by itself, it will be a lone monster, and people will not accept it.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 25, 2017, 12:56:46 AM

This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?

You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?

LN does not at all eliminate the need for bigger blocks and in fact the LN whitepaper says it will require larger blocks. Also, LN may be extremely useful but is not a complete scaling solution because it does not always fit the needs of people who want to use Bitcoin as peer to peer cash (because you first have to open channels, probably with centralized hubs).

So, I will ask you now: Were you unaware of this, or shilling for Blockstream/Core ?

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 24, 2017, 05:32:14 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 05:27:13 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on April 24, 2017, 04:27:42 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 04:06:22 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on April 24, 2017, 03:59:23 PM

Quote

Speaking to CoinDesk, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu confirmed he was personally in attendance at the meeting, despite his long opposition to the same upgrade on the bitcoin network. He said that it was the combination of SegWit, with a promise to support on-chain scaling solutions, that ultimately led Bitmain to back the proposal.

"Charlie [Lee] promised to provide solution of increasing the block size when it is half full," he said.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

So not much different than Hong Kong agreement, support for segwit in exchange for blocksize increase. Except Charlie Lee can't backpedal on his promise with "I represented Charlie Lee - an individual, not Charlie Lee - developer", hence the success.

The miners violated the Hong Kong agreement.

Nope. Right after the agreement was published, few other Core devs who weren't there said the agreement means nothing to them and won't support 2mb fork, then turned out the 'Core representation' was just a few individuals representing only themselves, rendering the entire meeting pointless. That's why some miners flipped, Jihan was pretty patient though iirc.

Whether it was incompetence and/or lack of communication between the Core team, or just a smart stunt to prevent Classic from getting a momentum - let everyone judge for themselves.

There are more 100 people in "core" and "core" does not have a leader that speaks for them all. So a few people from "core" can not make an agreement that all of "core" must follow.

The whole "core" violated the agreement narrative is a fallacy I wish the shills would stop spewing about.

If you spend some time investigating this, you will find plenty information about it instead of regurgitating r/btc trash.

Everyone knows this argument is bullshit on several levels.

Core does have leaders within its organization.

But, also its irrelevant who agreed to what because Core failed to raise the block limit and fought people like Gavin , Garzig , and Hearn who were trying to.

Core simply doesn't want bigger blocks and their actions prove it. If you can't admit that, you're obviously a shill of some kind.

This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?

You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 24, 2017, 09:21:35 PM

If you can't put 1 and 1 together (they're working on Lightening... and they've opposed big blocks) then you're an idiot or a shill.

"They are working..". In reality it is only a single employee that is paid to develop LN. Additionally, there are several other independent group also working on LN implementations. If anyone is the idiot here, it certain isn't FriendCoin.

Quote from: leopard2 on April 24, 2017, 09:22:23 PM

And what does that mean to BTC...? What I do know is that Asicboost inventors need sleeping pills right now Wink

The only intelligent response that I could come up with is: "Fuck your mother if you want fuck." - Jihan Wu.

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 11:33:27 PM

Shill script 101, if you can’t lie your way through or twist the truth to fit your narrative, resort to name calling, insult intelligence.

The inadequately educated loon even got some sort of badge on Reddit for whining and shilling all the time.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 11:33:27 PM

Shill script 101, if you can’t lie your way through or twist the truth to fit your narrative, resort to name calling, insult intelligence.

This is why there is no point in having a discussion with shills.

Try again. Here, i'll even fill out the first part of the sentence for you:

Even though Blockstream is working on the Lightening Network and favors small blocks, this isn't a settlement network because ___________________.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 24, 2017, 09:21:35 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 09:05:33 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 24, 2017, 07:34:14 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 07:18:57 PM

Shill on my friend.

Let me help some, core = blockstream, blockstream = banksters, banksters behind SegWit, therefore SegWit bad. Oh and throw something in there about blockstream not wanting bigger blocks because they want to centralize bitcoin through lightning network and make Bitcoin a settlement layer.

That's the shill argument that r/btc has been regurgitating endlessly, right?

It's the truth. Blockstream admits right on their own website that this is their vision for Bitcoin. Thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a shill.

Nowhere in that image does it say any of that other than they are building a fast network for micropayments.

AND I'm the shill? Roll Eyes

Yep.

If you can't put 1 and 1 together (they're working on Lightening... and they've opposed big blocks) then you're an idiot or a shill.

Shill script 101, if you can’t lie your way through or twist the truth to fit your narrative, resort to name calling, insult intelligence.

This is why there is no point in having a discussion with shills.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: leopard2 on April 24, 2017, 09:22:23 PM

LTC, now $15

If segwit fails, may be back to 4$ or less
If segwit works, maybe $50 or more

And what does that mean to BTC...? What I do know is that Asicboost inventors need sleeping pills right now Wink

Charlie Lee spent 8 hours on the Phone Promising the LTC Miners,
that when LTC blocks are 50% full, he would implement a blocksize increase. Cheesy

We will see if Charlie keeps his word. (Wonder if the miners got it in writing?)

But you can almost bet there was a promise that if segwit was not activated, then their would be no direct LTC/Fiat Wallet on coinbase.
(Which that is the game changer.)

LTC has no real use for segwit or LN, in fact the biggest quote is that it will allow LN hubs to exchange LTC for BTC bypassing exchanges.
The problem with this myth, is if BTC never activates segwit, no LN Hub would be able exchange BTC & LTC interchangeably. Wink

leopard2

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1014

LTC, now $15

If segwit fails, may be back to 4$ or less
If segwit works, maybe $50 or more

And what does that mean to BTC...? What I do know is that Asicboost inventors need sleeping pills right now Wink

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 09:05:33 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 24, 2017, 07:34:14 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 07:18:57 PM

Shill on my friend.

Let me help some, core = blockstream, blockstream = banksters, banksters behind SegWit, therefore SegWit bad. Oh and throw something in there about blockstream not wanting bigger blocks because they want to centralize bitcoin through lightning network and make Bitcoin a settlement layer.

That's the shill argument that r/btc has been regurgitating endlessly, right?

It's the truth. Blockstream admits right on their own website that this is their vision for Bitcoin. Thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a shill.

Nowhere in that image does it say any of that other than they are building a fast network for micropayments.

AND I'm the shill? Roll Eyes

Yep.

If you can't put 1 and 1 together (they're working on Lightening... and they've opposed big blocks) then you're an idiot or a shill.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 24, 2017, 07:34:14 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 07:18:57 PM

Shill on my friend.

Let me help some, core = blockstream, blockstream = banksters, banksters behind SegWit, therefore SegWit bad. Oh and throw something in there about blockstream not wanting bigger blocks because they want to centralize bitcoin through lightning network and make Bitcoin a settlement layer.

That's the shill argument that r/btc has been regurgitating endlessly, right?

It's the truth. Blockstream admits right on their own website that this is their vision for Bitcoin. Thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a shill.

Nowhere in that image does it say any of that other than they are building a fast network for micropayments.

AND I'm the shill? Roll Eyes

darkangel11

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 1360

Don't let others control your BTC -> self custody

Quote from: SHAWN-MIDWAYS on April 24, 2017, 07:30:33 PM

nothing is impossible !
Am sure all consend parties who can make segwit work will have to see what kind of reception /response the transition ltc will receive and how much of a difference it makes on the speed of transactions

Correct, but don't forget that LTC had much lower SW acceptance threshold and once it was reached and update became inevitable people flocked to the new version.
Bitcoin would need 95% to reach the same point, which IMO is impossible in the current state. There are many people who are investing big money into their own projects that oppose SW and this money will sway people.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 07:18:57 PM

Shill on my friend.

Let me help some, core = blockstream, blockstream = banksters, banksters behind SegWit, therefore SegWit bad. Oh and throw something in there about blockstream not wanting bigger blocks because they want to centralize bitcoin through lightning network and make Bitcoin a settlement layer.

That's the shill argument that r/btc has been regurgitating endlessly, right?

It's the truth. Blockstream admits right on their own website that this is their vision for Bitcoin. Thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a shill.

Sadlife

sr. member

Activity: 1400

Merit: 269

Looks like Segwit consensus is apparent this shows that who the miners really support
Obviously the core group has been on this field for a very long time
miners wouldn't trust their money to some buggy software better to invest it in a much reliable people.

SHAWN-MIDWAYS

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 521

nothing is impossible !
Am sure all consend parties who can make segwit work will have to see what kind of reception /response the transition ltc will receive and how much of a difference it makes on the speed of transactions

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: Chef Ramsay on April 24, 2017, 06:45:48 PM

My guess is that Coinbase is waiting for the full implementation of segwit on litecoin before they greenlight selling it so as to create maximum buying pressure at the right time, leading to a new ATH and beyond. When the dust settles, much of the profits will come back to bitcoin sending it to the moon.

I agree, once the segwit news hit worldwide media, followed by the addition of coinbase, the buying force could be enough to surpass the ATH. But I reject the narrative of this being a short term thing. Think about the consequences of a BTC that is pretty much impossible to change vs the LTC + segwit + LN alternative. As long as BTC stays as it is, LTC will be the reasonable currency to use for payments while BTC will be gold 2.0.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: pawel7777 on April 24, 2017, 05:59:58 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 05:27:13 PM

...
There are more 100 people in "core" and "core" does not have a leader that speaks for them all. So a few people from "core" can not make an agreement that all of "core" must follow.

The whole "core" violated the agreement narrative is a fallacy I wish the shills would stop spewing about.

If you spend some time investigating this, you will find plenty information about it instead of regurgitating r/btc trash.

Lol. Are you saying "Core" is not able to come to any sort of decision until every single one of that 100 (incl. spell checkers) agrees on it? Are they not able to delegate representation to the meeting? Are they capable of making any decisions at all? Didn't G Maxwell call them 'dipshits' for acting like they were representing Core team?

I don't have to investigate, I was here at that time and was watching closely, long before you created your sockpuppet account to act like a grassroots Core support.

Oooh, congratulations you got an account that's been around for a long time and it was probably sold to the highest shill employer too. If you don't know how Bitcoin development works, you probably shouldn't be posting here.

Shill on my friend.

Let me help some, core = blockstream, blockstream = banksters, banksters behind SegWit, therefore SegWit bad. Oh and throw something in there about blockstream not wanting bigger blocks because they want to centralize bitcoin through lightning network and make Bitcoin a settlement layer.

That's the shill argument that r/btc has been regurgitating endlessly, right?

Chef Ramsay

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 1001

My guess is that Coinbase is waiting for the full implementation of segwit on litecoin before they greenlight selling it so as to create maximum buying pressure at the right time, leading to a new ATH and beyond. When the dust settles, much of the profits will come back to bitcoin sending it to the moon.

squatz1

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1285

Flying Hellfish is a Commie

Even though this is wonderful and all, it's not like it's going to change anything in the least. All it's going to do right now, is to let some of the people that are pumping LTC have a bit more fuel to the fire and make a little bit more money out of it as the price is going higher and higher.

What this may do is show the miners for BTC that it may be more worth it to actually go ahead and switch to Segwit signaling but I doubt it's going to sway much of an opinion over here.

UASF is the only way for us to adopt SW, please!

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: -ck on April 24, 2017, 05:14:43 PM

Segwit activation will happen on LTC and then... nothing will happen. LTC will continue to be as useless as it's always been and people will realise and its value will drop to its same baseline. However, what this will achieve is finally some good publicity for segwit in general since activation will be such a non-event where nothing bad happens and people will wonder what the fuss was all about. This will indirectly be good for bitcoin's segwit implementation - therefore this almost certainly will be the single most useful thing LTC has ever done. Which is a good thing since that's what altcoins were always meant to be in the first place - a playground for ideas for BTC; that got forgotten years ago and altcoins are just everyone trying to ride the next market capitalisation wave to be rich. They're all just playgrounds for pump and dump.

Anyway good news for segwit.

How is LTC useless, specially with segwit and lightning networks? Who wants to pay for stuff with bitcoin, having to wait 1 hour and 40 minutes, paying an higher fee, when you can send litecoin for a tiny transaction and really fast? Tons of places accept LTC too. For example, subscriptions to websites, VPN services, and basically everywhere where BTC is accepted in online services like that LTC is useful too.

Once BTC inevitably hits a threshold of a fee being higher than all those small payments for services, BTC will be actually useless for a ton of use cases. Slowly it will become a hodl coin and only a fool will make payments with it. And we are not anywhere close to getting consensus for any sort of capacity increases, so think before claiming LTC is useless next time.

Topic: The impossible has been reached: LTC has 100% SW support! Can BTC ever do it? - page 2. (Read 2644 times)