Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2027
  1. An alternative proposal to SegWit was to simply increase the block size (as was done for the Bitcoin Cash hard fork)
  2. SegWit also addressed the transaction malleability bug
  3. SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network
  4. No. SegWit is not forced as it was a soft fork and people, wallets and other services can choose to use the old protocol.
1 Like
#2028

1)A hard fork increasing the block size.

2)It solved the issue of transaction malleability.

3)Segwit allows second layer solutions like the Lightning Network.

4)No it was a soft fork.

1 Like
#2029

  1. Segwit alternative was increase the block size(BCH).

  2. Also solved a double spending bag in the blockchain(tx malleability)

  3. With Segwit implementation the future tx ID has been moved out of the btc and it is an opportunity to use second layer solutions,such as lightning network.

4.One of the best example of soft fork is Segwit,as old wallet users has not been forced to use it,but better they change as this soft fork comes with smaller data usage and cheaper tx fees too.

1 Like
#2030

1 increase blocksize
2 stops tx malleability
3 because of the segregated part of the tx its possible to add other features to the sign.part like lightning network
4 no

1 Like
#2031

  1. Block size increase, which ended up creating Bitcoin Cash.

  2. They removed the witness information, creating lower fees transactions and allowing more transactions with the same block size limit.

  3. 2nd layer protocols (like Lightning network) became possible after Segwit implementation.

  4. No its a soft fork.

1 Like
#2032
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the block size limit
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction Malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit allowed easier integration of layer-solutions such as the lightening network
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No they are not
1 Like
#2033
  1. Increasing the block size.
  2. It also solved a transaction malleability issue where people could change the signatures of a transaction and defraud the network.
  3. Segwit helped make the Lightning Network possible by making second layer solutions possible.
  4. No they aren’t, because it was a soft fork.
1 Like
#2034
  1. Increase block size.
  2. Transaction maleabillty.
  3. They both aim to increase tps. Segwit helps to implement lighting network as it fixes maleabilty, making less risky to implement lightning network.
  4. No. It is a soft fork.
2 Likes
#2035

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    A) Fixed transaction mallebilities.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    A) Second layer solution enabled by the lightning network.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    A) No

2 Likes
#2036

  1. The proposed alternative to segwit was to increased the blocksize from 1MB to 2 MB.

  2. Segwit also solved the issue of malleability. Malleability is the modification of the digital signature within a transaction.

  3. Segwit resolves the malleability bug which enables the layer 2 solutions such as Lightning network to add functionality that increases the amount of transactions that can be performed per second for bitcoin.

  4. Segwit is not a fork but instead is additional functionality on the bitcoin network that allows wallets and other services to add support for segwit.

2 Likes
#2037

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the size of the transaction block. So instead of capping it at 1MB moving this up to a higher number.

  2. Segwit also solved the problem of the possibility of transaction malleability.

  3. The Lightning network works well with Segwit because Segwit provides greater security that a transaction that is unconfirmed won’t be manipulated by a bad actor. Hence, small transactions using Lightning won’t need to go to the blockchain for confirmation right away. This allows faster and a great number of transactions to occur because they are not happening on chain every time.

  4. People are not forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork. Indeed, it took time for this update to roll out across the network.

1 Like
#2038
  1. Doubling the block size to 2MB (resulting in a hard fork)
  2. It also solved the transaction malleability which was the original purpose of this enhancement
  3. Because Segwit enabled the possibility of second layer solutions such as the Lightning network.
  4. No because this update was done through a soft fork.
1 Like
#2039

  1. The alternative proposition was to increase the block size from the current 1mb to 2 mb. However this would lead to a hard fork and an expansion of the rule set hence Segwit was chosen

  2. It removed the issue with transaction malleability. All previous transactions could be manipulated by changing its original signature to create a new transaction ID. Segwit now stores the signature separately to the transaction to prevent this issue altogether

  3. Segwit made it possible to develop second layer protocols. The fixing of the transaction malleability issue made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

  4. No. Although Segwit was implemented in 2017, it has only reached around 50% usage by 2019. Today, at the time of writing, it is currently estimated to be around 68% usage. However people are incentivised to use it as it reduces transaction fee, confirmation time and allows you to implement second layer protocols.

1 Like
#2040

  1. increasing the block sizes

  2. solved the issue of transaction malleability

  3. supports the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network

  4. no, the old protocol can still be used

1 Like
#2041

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase the size of the blocks

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit solves tx malleability and makes lower fess

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    well segwit supports the second layer solution which is the famous ligtning network

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No , its a softfork but with the time more wallet ar adding segwit support

2 Likes
#2042
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

To increase the size of the blocks.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Segwit solved the issue with transaction malleability.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

The lightning network is a second layer protocol that can be implemented because Segwit solved the problem of transaction malleability.

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

No, soft forks do not require participants to update to be relevant.

1 Like
#2043

Q: What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A: Directly increasing the block size like Bitcoin Cash did to 8mb.

Q: What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
A: Transaction malleability. It made it impossible to change the transaction ID by storing the signature separate to the block.

Q: How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
A: Segwit allows the possibility of second layer protocols such as the Lightning network by giving assurance that transaction ID’s of uncommitted transactions cannot be changed and therefore allowing features to be built on top of this.

Q: Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
A: No, Segwit is a soft fork and so it’s optional but adoption is steadily increasing.

1 Like
#2044
  1. A proposal to double the block size was adopted by some. This adoption caused a hard fork creating bitcoin cash
  2. Transaction Malleability - fixed a vulnerability issue with the transaction ID #
  3. Segwit allows for development of 2nd layer protocols such as Lightning
    Lighting running as a 2nd layer protocol can further boost bitcoins transaction capacity.
  4. You are not forced but you are financially incentivized. If your wallet us using Segwit your transaction would be smaller resulting in a lower transaction fee.
1 Like
#2045

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing block size, which was in fact the factor behind the hard for that created Bitcoin Cash.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It also solved the Transaction malleability bug, which allowed some people to alter data contained in the signature, which then changed the transaction ID. By removing the signature data from the transaction, this fixed both the transaction malleability issue and the size of the data structure.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit fixed transaction malleability, which made features that relied on unconfirmed transactions les risky and easier to design.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, because the new transactions structure will still work inside the previous structures ruleset, though depending on if you are mining or not it becomes more financially viable to update to Segwit since you will be able to fit more Txs in each block mined.

1 Like
#2046
  1. The alternative to Segwit was to increase the size of the block (which eventually led to hard fork and making Bitcoin cash).
  2. Transaction malleability.
  3. It is a second layer protocol that was made possible by Segwit.
  4. No, it is a soft fork update.
1 Like