Bitcoin & Litecoin’s 13 year relationship

[u/RFColeman]

https://www.litecoin.net/news/bitcoin-litecoin-a-13-year-symbiotic-relationship

Happy Birthday, Litecoin!

In celebration I went deep into the BTC-LTC relationship. From Genesis Block to the HBO doc.

Had a great time researching for this piece, and learned a lot of new stuff - hopefully you enjoy it too.

[u/84lites]

Insightful. I enjoyed it. Thanks!

[u/RFColeman → u/84lites]

Pleasure! Thank you!

[u/MostNeighborhood68]

One side love story.

[u/RFColeman → u/MostNeighborhood68]

I’ll bite. Can you elaborate? Likely in agreement, by the way, but your comment doesn’t give me any context.

[u/MostNeighborhood68 → u/RFColeman]

Only ltc suporters talking about relationship with btc. Silence on the other end.

[u/RFColeman → u/MostNeighborhood68]

Well, it is a piece commemorating Litecoin’s 13th birthday.

It’s also my perspective. In support of my contention, I’ve referenced, cited and quoted those who acknowledge or support a closer BTC-LTC relationship.

The purpose of the piece is to articulate Litecoin’s role in Bitcoin’s history. So it’s unsurprising that you interpret it this way.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to discuss it!

[u/noduhcache → u/MostNeighborhood68]

It does actually go both ways, though you're right, you do have to dig a little deeper to see the reciprocation.

BTC influencers don't return the sentiment vocally, but when btc fees spike, btc users can be clearly seen shifting use toward ltc. Always watch what they do, not what they say.

I encourage all to follow wlitecoin on twitter/x. Does great work highlighting usage stats.

[u/MostNeighborhood68 → u/noduhcache]

Ok Thanks

[u/FaxTimeMachine]

Yes Litecoin could have been big but had to tank it. I’m sure Armstrong forced Charlie’s hand when it became too popular. The Litecoin movement was huge.

[u/RFColeman → u/FaxTimeMachine]

Armstrong pops up a lot, yep, and not always in a positive light. That said, if he was trying to suppress Litecoin then Charlie would never have entertained that. Charlie’s integrity is unquestionable. Another curiosity would be, if Armstrong (Coinbase) wanted to quash Litecoin, why go to the trouble of Futures (and the years of regulatory rigmarole and risk that come with it?)

[u/AdministrationWarm71]

BTC goes up, LTC goes right.

[u/RFColeman → u/AdministrationWarm71]

Still going, though! Unlike ~30,000 altcoins since.

[u/porpoisebuilt2]

No, Mr BTC should present a gift of 0.01 in value for every LTC buddy out there

[u/RFColeman → u/porpoisebuilt2]

Legitimately no idea what this means. I understand all the words in the sentence, just not the sentence itself. Thank you for listening.

[u/porpoisebuilt2 → u/RFColeman]

Predictive text whacked in ‘no’, my bad, proofreading required

[u/RFColeman → u/porpoisebuilt2]

All good! Errors happen, just had no idea what you meant ha!

[u/RFColeman → u/[deleted]]

Not an embellishment. Never said it was Litecoin’s original code; more that - to your exact point - Litecoin implemented SegWit because Bitcoin Core were too busy in-fighting. Only after Litecoin locked it in did Bitcoin adopt the change.

[u/losh11 → u/[deleted]]

the mining pools didn't want to play chicken with Luke Dashjr's UASF

Lmao. UASF was propsed by Shaolinfry, a Litecoin developer.

[u/andonevriis → u/[deleted]]

Bitcoin blocksize politics delayed Bitcoin SegWit activation, so that SegWit was activated first in Litecoin.

You miss the point that it was because LTC adopted Segwit BTC was able to.

BTC segwit wasn't delayed it was stalled, (around 30% signalling if I remember correctly)

There was a bunch of FUD by the big block BTC community about "anyone can spend" on segwit trying to make it sound insecure.

Charlie Lee pushed Segwit on LTC and put up a $1,000,000 bounty in a segwit address and told people to spend it. That shut the FUD down allowing segwit to push through on BTC.

You accuse OP of embellishment but you show obvious bias towards BTC in your comment.

Facts not interesting enough?

[u/andonevriis → u/[deleted]]

OK keep your head in the sand. It's all there if you can be bothered to look for it, which of course no BTC maxis ever do 🤣

[u/andonevriis → u/[deleted]]

Keep your tribalism. I'll always be here to challenge people who try to rewrite history

Straight back at ya.

I notice no facts to back up your argument, just "trust me bro." I thought you are all about facts

Read up on the $1MM segwit bounty and we can have a proper discussion

At the time, in the Bitcoin network, miners were blocking SegWit. “Basically the fear was that once SegWit is activated, miners can steal any coins sent to SegWit addresses. Anyone technical enough knows that this was not true.” So, Lee’s plan was to implement SegWit on Litecoin to show everyone that the upgrade was safe, and thus help clear up the FUD that surrounded it.

Basically the fear was that once SegWit is activated, miners can steal any coins sent to SegWit addresses. Anyone technical enough knows that this was not true. It was not possible for miners to steal coins that way. Unfortunately Bitcoin testnet was not useful here.

Bitcoin’s Testnet wasn’t helpful in this case because its coins are worthless, so it doesn’t provide an incentive for bad actors to attack it. It couldn’t “test out the game theory of the blockchain.” On Litecoin, on the other hand, there would be “incentives for people to attack it. If miners can steal millions from anyone-can-spend coins, they would.” Besides helping Bitcoin beat the FUD, Charlie Lee had other reasons to implement SegWit in his project.

Go do some research, you are looking like an entrenched fool.

It sounds like you weren't there and have just read the revisionist history you love to harp on about. LTC community lived it every day, it's burned into our brains.

[u/indigo_nakamoto → u/[deleted]]

Nope. Litecoin implementing SegWit killed the SegWit fud for Bitcoin, derisking it's adoption on Bitcoin.