Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2006
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A: Increasing the size of the block from 1mB to 2mB
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    A: Transaction ID malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    A: Segwit allows for a second layer protocol, which the Lightning network is.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    A: no, because it is a soft fork.
1 Like
#2007
  1. The alternative was to increase the block size of transactions which would lead to a hard fork.
  2. It fixed the malleability issue where someone could alter the signature of a transaction resulting in a new transaction ID hash.
  3. The lightning network was developed due to segwit as it now allows for second layer protocol to be less risky and easier to design by removing the malleability issue.
  4. No, as segwit was a soft fork. This meant that due to the block size not changing the updated protocol is still compatible with the previous version of the protocol.
1 Like
#2009

Thanks Ales!

Now I know the answer on my complicated question - by reviewing the part of the lecture :smiley: If a node didn’t verify a transaction in a received new mined block (is he even doing that, before accepting the mined block?), he will query another node which still has the signature for it.

1 Like
#2010

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    To increase the block size

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction Malleability

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit supports the development of second layer protocol, such as the lightning network

  4. Are people, wallets, and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, since SegWit is a soft fork

1 Like
#2011
  1. A proposed alternative was increasing the block size to 2 MB or even higher, up from 1MB. Bitcoin Cash was one idea, which did increase the block size.
  2. Segwit helped eliminate transaction malleability, which was a way people could change the tx hash by changing the signature. Segwit increased the security of the transactions by removing the signature from the part of the tx that is hashed.
  3. Segwit is related to Lightning Network in that it allowed Lightning (and other 2nd layer solutions) to be built on top of bitcoin because the transaction malleability problem was solved.
  4. No one is forced to use Segwit because it was not a hard fork, but use has gradually increased as wallets updated their software. Most want to use it because tx are faster and fees are lower.
1 Like
#2012

  1. Making the maximum block size 2mb so more data can be put into a block.

  2. Transaction Malleability.

  3. The lightning network helps bitcoin make faster transactions just like segwit.

  4. No

1 Like
#2013

1.) What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increased block size
2.) What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? transaction malleability and supporting second layer solutions.
3.) How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? Segwit supports second layer solution lighting network.
4.) Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No old transaction can still be used.

2 Likes
#2014

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    To increase the block size limit.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It fixed a bug in the BTC code called transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    I don´t think so, because you have BTC cash that is a fork of BTC. They chose to implement a larger block size limit.

#2015
  1. To double the size of a block so more transactions could be added to a block.
  2. It did away with transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit helped to make the lightning network possible.
  4. No because it became a soft fork.
1 Like
#2016
  1. Increase the block size.
  2. Transaction malleability.
  3. It allows the lightning network to run smaller transactions off-chain with little risk.
  4. No
1 Like
#2017
  1. To increase the block size to 2mb
  2. Transaction malleability, other people could sign over your signature and the transaction that you sent wouldn’t be found.
  3. Segwit made possible so that the lighting network may work.
  4. If they operate by the rules they are not because of the soft fork.
1 Like
#2018

Bitcoin cash was a hardfork because they wanted to increase the blocksize.
Segwit was a softfork, so full nodes are not forced to update the bitcoin software. The changes made with segwit are still obeying the old consensus rules.

1 Like
#2019
  1. ti increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB.
  2. it solved transaction malleability
  3. Segwit makes 2nd layer possible
  4. No…it was a soft fork.
1 Like
#2020
  1. increase in block size limit
  2. solved the transaction malleability problem, which basically means that a receiver could change the signature of a transaction
  3. segwit supports development of second layer solutions
  4. no, it was a soft fork, and there are still nodes that haven’t implemented it
1 Like
#2021

  1. The main alternative is Bitcoin Cash, which increased block size limits instead of integrating SegWit.

  2. It removed a bug in the Bitcoin programming language that allowed people to tweak the hash of a transaction ID without changing the contents, which led to some exploitation of those unaware of this. Now with SegWit, tweaking the signatures will no longer affect the Hash of a transaction and removes this possibility of transaction malleability.

  3. SegWit was implemented on the Lightning Network a few months prior to implementation on the Bitcoin network. SegWit also “supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the Lightning network”, by removing the issue of transaction malleability, making the Lightning network possible.

  4. It was not forced upon the community because it was introduced via a Soft Fork. Some people in the Bitcoin community didn’t agree with this update and an example of this is the existence of Bitcoin Cash, which increased block sizes instead of using SegWit.

#2022

Segwit was not implemented on the Lightning network because its not a blockchain. But it did make the Lightning network safer and easier to implement.
I think it was implemented on Lightcoin a few months prior to being released on Bitcoin.

You can also still use old style transactions on Bitcoin as well. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#2023

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to just increase the block size from 1MB.

  2. Segwit also solved the transaction ID malleability problem.

  3. Segwit allowed for faster transaction capacity and laid the foundation for Lightning network which will increase it further.

  4. People are not forced to use Segwit however their transactions will be slower and higher fees. Until it is adopted by the majority of the BTC population the other transactions will still be accepted to the blockchain.

1 Like
#2024

Old transactions will always work on Bitcoin. :slight_smile:

#2025
  1. Block size increase
  2. It also increased the security of BTC, because it solved the bug in BTC code that a hacker could change the signature and obviously this change will affect the all connections, by taking out from the data structure the signature, storing it to a different place.
  3. Lightning Network is a second layer protocol allowed by the Segwit update.
  4. No, because the update is a soft fork and old transactions can also be used.
1 Like
#2026
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Implement a larger block size limit

  1. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Transaction malleability

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

No

1 Like