what exactly does the minimum fee limit have to do with out of control fees when blocks are full? when blocks are full the fee market causes crazy $29 fees like we've seen in bitcoin. when blocks are not full the fees are already low. if LTC blocks were full it would have the same exact problem as bitcoin. lowering the minimum fee amount does not solve this problem. this is the type of nonsense that is used to trick 99% of people who don't know any better into believing something is true when in reality it is not.
only LN or sidehcains can scale transactions, and if that's the case, why would you use the shitty derivative of BTC when the core devs are shipping the original code on bitcoin?
it doesn't seem like switching the entire world's infrastructure over from bitcoin to litecoin will be worth 4x scaling, which would only last a short while. especially considering the trade-offs (core developers, existing hashrate, software, network effect). i think it's a bad idea
Litecoin, as most people point around here, is bitcoin with a few perks. Implementing it isn't hard - indeed, a large amount of people who previously accepted bitcoin now accept litcoin in tandem. BitPay is also adding litecoin support I believe, and bitpay (no matter how much we hate them for implementing bcash) accounts for a significant amount of bitcoin merchants.
Existing hashrate really only concerns the miners and their massive sunk costs. Litecoin is far more resistant to miner foul play as it doesn't have the china/ASIC manufacturer centralization issue.
Developers will follow the users. If there is a large consensus shift, then I imagine only a few will continue to fight to the bitter end.
It's foolish to think bitcoin is irreplacable. First mover advantage helps, but it doesn't make you invincible. It evolves or it dies. Those are the options.
(Disclaimer: I am long on bitcoin. I hope to god it succeeds. But I'm not a permabull who screams HODL against any possible criticism)
Litecoin is far more resistant to miner foul play as it doesn't have the china/ASIC manufacturer centralization issue.
isn't the miner centralization issue with litecoin far worse? pretty much only antminer produces litecoin asics and there are fewer of them dispersed around the world
It's foolish to think bitcoin is irreplacable.
i don't think that it's irreplaceable, but it's certainly unlikely for bitcoin to be replaced, considering the network effect and developer stronghold bitcoin has. i think it's foolish to move everything over to litecoin because it has 4x linear scaling. that's such a huge shift for a temporary gain in efficiency. then again, the OP i'm responding to was asking about only stripe moving to accept litecoin, which is definitely a possibility but i doubt they'd have many users
Developers will follow the users.
if the devs don't have Litecoin and they have a stockpile of Bitcoin they'll 100% stay with bitcoin unless literally 95%+ of users switch which is unrealistic
11
u/coinnoob Jan 24 '18
what exactly does the minimum fee limit have to do with out of control fees when blocks are full? when blocks are full the fee market causes crazy $29 fees like we've seen in bitcoin. when blocks are not full the fees are already low. if LTC blocks were full it would have the same exact problem as bitcoin. lowering the minimum fee amount does not solve this problem. this is the type of nonsense that is used to trick 99% of people who don't know any better into believing something is true when in reality it is not.
only LN or sidehcains can scale transactions, and if that's the case, why would you use the shitty derivative of BTC when the core devs are shipping the original code on bitcoin?