- remove the signatures can feed more TRANSACTIONS in a block
- malleability
3)second layer protocol.
4)NO
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative to Segwit was to make a hard fork by increasing the block size. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit solves the tx-malleability and lower bitcoin fees with supporting second-layer protocols such as the lightning network. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit makes it possible to support second layer protocols, such as the lightning network. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
As it is a soft fork, old addresses and tx can still be used.
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
To increase the block size limit (to 2 MB) - What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The security issue, where it is possible to make slight changes in the signature area which causes a change of the transaction ID without making the transaction invalid. - How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
SegWit supports the development of second layer solutions as for example the Lightning network. - Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it’s an update. It includes a new rule. It’s still possible to send transactions without SegWit, the miners will still understand and verify the transactions as valid. But not updated miners will not understand SegWit - This question is maybe related to the upcoming video, maybe it’s not 100% correct place to be here
1 Like
Hello People. I have still some questions left on SegWit. Maybe someone can help me with them. Thanks in advance!
-
How is it possible to stop the propagation of Alice’s transaction?
-
Is there not another issue created? If I was able to make slight changes in the signature area in the transaction it self, I still will be able to make changes in the new data location. To do this will not make sense in the Alice-Bob Example, but to disturb the network. Though I don’t know how much effort it costs to do so.
-
For this question, I assume that every block added to the chain by a node will be checked before for any unknown transactions. I think the node need to verify the difference exception, correct?
How is a node verifying the transactions of a received new mined block, which he never verified and accordingly doesn’t have the signatures for?
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? increase the block size but we know the problems that will cause.
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Transaction Malleability
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? as a second layer over the blockchain network
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No, just have to be compatible.
1 Like
-
Increasing the block size. Bitcoin cash.
-
It solved transaction malleability aswell.
-
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as lightning network , further boosting bitcoin transaction capacity.
-
No.
1 Like
- A proposed alternate to Segwit was to increase the block size.
- Segwit was also able to solve the transaction malleability issue, on top of the scaling issue.
- Segwit supports layer 2 protocols such as the lightning network, when they are both implemented they will help improve the speed of transactions.
- People are not forced to use Segwit.
1 Like
- An increase of blocksize from 1MB to 2MB.
- Segwit also solved the transaction malleability vulnerability by removing the signature information from the transaction and storing them outside the “base transaction block” (cointelegraph, 2018)
- SegWit made it possible for the Lighting Network to be used as the side chain as the fixing of the transaction malleability problem made features/solutions that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky.
- No, no one is forced to use SegWit. However, using it is beneficial for the network in general because it lowers the transaction fees and enables more transactions to be confirmed within one block. At least in theory.
I actually have a question regarding SegWit’s actual success and bitcoin’s scaling process.
Just today (or yesterday) the bitcoin transaction fees were at their highest since December 2017/January 2018 craze. And the fees have been way above the average for some time now in 2020, so the recent spike because of the massive drop in hashrate is not the only reason.
About 66% of the Bitcoin network seems to be using SegWit transactions at the time of writing, as we can see from the chart below:
Although majority of transaction nowadays are SegWit, that doesn’t seem to stop the overall blocksize trend neither:
And Lightning Network is not as used as we hoped?
My observation here is that SegWit does not seem to be a long term solution (increase to 2 MB block size isn’t either). And even when Schnorr Signatures get implemented (who knows when that’s going to happen?) it will be about 30% boost in block capacity, which I guess will be filled pretty quickly by looking at the trend.
We know for long time now that scaling for BTC is an issue. So how come we are not dealing with it properly? It seems to me like the development is far back from the current and definitely from the potential demand and network activity. BTC will most certainly “fail” in the peak, and maybe even before the peak, of the upcoming bullrun in terms of transaction fees which will deflect a lot of potential new users. Of course, the fundamentals will always hold true, so it is and will be the best hedge for institutions, big investors etc. But when retail? If ever?
Is the bitcoin core development community under-funded perhaps and have too little resources for a faster development? Or is this new technology so complicated that it takes decades to develop and implement? I guess a bit of both, but what is the bigger issue?
I’m just worried here because I don’t want to see BTC trash talked in a year from now and being call a dinosaur and stuff like that. 
2 Likes
Both transactions are propagating, its just a matter of which one actually gets into the block first.
Malleability must be well timed and is in fact quite difficult to execute.
I don’t understand the question. Every node verifies all transactions on their own.
2 Likes
I don’t know about the Bitcoin development being under funded, its actually not funded at all. Blockstream does have a few payed developers that worked on the bitcoin source code, but I think left a while ago.
Infrastructure development takes time, its not a website you can code in a day. Even if it would be simple (which is not) it would still have to be well tested before being implemented.
Then there is adoption. In my opinion Lightning network is functional and can be used for many things today even if it doesn’t have al features implemented yet. The problem is most people use Bitcoin to trade and exchanges still haven’t implemented Lightning transactions so people are bound to use the main network to withdraw from and to exchanges which I imagine is the majority of transactions on Bitcoin today. 
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to segwit?
One alternative to the segwit upgrade was to increase the transaction block size.
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit also solved the malleability issue around changing a signature of a transaction which should alter the transaction ID. The new transaction structure has the signature separate from the main transaction information therefore it can be changed without changing the transaction ID.
- How is Segwit and the lightning network connected?
Segwit supports the development of second layer solutions like the lightning network by fixing the malleability issue and allowing the lighting network to use unconfirmed transactions with less risk. The lightning network wants to boost transaction capacity by taking Sam transactions off chain and settling them on chain at a later date.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use segwit?
No Segwit is a soft fork but those that do will help lower fees and help process transactions more efficiently on the network.
2 Likes
- Increasing block size
- Transaction malleability
- Segwit enables Lightning network by addressing the transaction malleability issue.
- No.
2 Likes
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Ans: Increasing the block size and creating a hard fork. - What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Ans: Transaction Malleability - How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Ans: Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as the Lightning Network. . The malleability fix by Segwit made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.The lightning network will further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready - Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Ans: Not yet.
1 Like
- Increasing block size was proposed as an alternative
- By removing the signature from the transaction id the Block is no longer vulnerable to malleability attack because a change to the signature does not change the block id hash.
- The lighting network and Segwit both attempt to enhance transaction throughput but by different means, also lightning is a layer two solution that relies upon the Segwit update.
- No, Segwit was a soft fork
2 Likes
- To increase blocksize.
- Malleability problem.
- Due to Segwit Ligntning network could be created.
- It was a soft fork so technically no.
2 Likes
-
To increase the block size limitation.
-
Segwit was able to address the transaction ID malleability problem as well as moving the signature elsewhere.
-
Segwit allows second layering to be possible.
-
No, it is a soft fork allowing the other transactions to be used if Segwit is not used or supported.
1 Like
One proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size.
Segwit corrected the malleability bug and introduced the support for second layer additions.
The lightning network uses bitcoin for transactions. The lightning network creates a vpn between two wallets that creates and settles transactions between wallets. After the vpn is broken, the transactions are sent to the bitcoin blockchain mempool for processing onto the blockchain.
No. People, wallets, and other services are not forces to use Segwit.
1 Like
Lightning network creates payment channels between two nodes.
1 Like
1.To increase block size.
2. Transaction malluability, however that is spelled. IDs could ve altered, altering subsequent hashes, this cannot happen anymore because ID aren’t contained in the block.
3. Segwit made it possible.
4. No, it was a soft fork
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increasing the block size from 1mb to 2mb.
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? The issue of tranasaction malleabilty and 2nd layer solutions.
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? The both utilized removal of signature from the block to fix the malleability issue and increase number of transaction in the block. And both prevented the need for 2nd layer solutions.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No, you can chose to use segwit or not before you broadcast your transaction to the network because segwit was a soft fork.
1 Like