- u/coinfeeds-bot wrote in r/cryptocurrency

The following comments were observed on Reddit:

"If Ordinals breaks Litecoin, then it is not anti-fragile." - u/indigo_nakamoto in r/litecoin

"350KB image cost me $0.10, and to do the same thing right now on Bitcoin is about $550" - same user, in r/cryptocurrency

"And what is the benefit?" - another user in the same thread

And for historical perspective:

"[...] the very real benefit Litecoin has long had with its anti-spam mechanism making transactions that do happen to not be crowded out by worthless spam outputs." - Warren Togami, developer on BTC and LTC, responding to a question about blocksize on Litecoin in 2015

Guess we have to wait and see what happens when cheap blockspace meets the "storing data on the blockchain" crowd.

I get flashbacks to what happened to BSV, but LTC and BTC developers are probably not going to let things get quite so bad.

But if blocks can be filled up by Ordinals cheaply, then financial transactions must pay more - or move to other chains where they are more economical.

LTC still has MWEB (extension block for confidential transactions). But this was supposed to be strictly optional -- some services incl. well known exchanges do not support these private transactions.

If regular financial transactions on LTC will be crowded out by arbitrary data, then this would be bad news for financial transactions on LTC, to a surprisingly large degree.

Why?

MW does come with its own disadvantages. For example, transactions must be built interactively. It is also not script-based which makes it impossible to implement as a typical soft-fork. This also makes private Litecoin transactions BOLT incompatible and currently unsuitable for the Lightning Network being developed on top of Bitcoin and Litecoin.

Source: https://github.com/litecoin-project/lips/blob/master/lip-0003.mediawiki#rationale-for-mimblewimble

I think you can figure out the implications!

p.s. Bullish on Bitcoin Cash :)