Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2068

1- The proposed alternative to Segwit was to implement a change in Bitcoin’s protocol to actually increase the block size limit, which would only temporarily solve Bitcoin’s scaling issue. A group of nodes and miners chose to implement this solution and they created Bitcoin Cash by hard forking off the main Bitcoin network.

2- Segwit also solved the txn malleability issue on the Bitcoin network by removing the witness data from the txn data and storing the witness data separately. This solution improves security when verifying unconfirmed transactions because a recipient who attempts to tamper digital signatures after the txn has been sent will no longer be able to affect the hash of the txn data.

3- Segwit was a necessary step to address the security and scalability issues that was preventing the bitcoin network from reaching mass adoption. The payment channel mechanisms of the Lightening network could not be implemented until txn malleability was addressed because the system needs to guarantee that digital signatures could not be tampered with in order to allow for the existence of off-chain payment channels.

4- No one is forced to use Segwit because it was a SF update to the network and nodes that chose not to update can still process txns under the new rules. However Segwit adoption is slowly increasing, and as adoption increases more wallets and services will build Segwit support and use the features of Segwit to build 2nd layer solutions on top of the bitcoin network

1 Like
#2069

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit a suggestion to to increase the block size larger than 1mB to allow for increased information on each block. However this came with its own set of issues. We would eventually reach the capacity of the new block size, and be right back where we started. It would increase centralization as more hardware would be needed for miners, as the would need more storage, memory, and better internet needed to send larger blocks. The larger the blocks the more time it takes to send them through the internet. This in it itself brings its own set of problems, stale blocks due to different propagating time and new larger blocks, with smaller faster moving blocks, possibly causing forks.

  2. Other than the scaling issue, Segwit also solved transaction malleability. This means that part of the information in the signature of the block could be changed, therefore changing the ID of the block after the transaction had been sent. This made it possible to “disguise” the block from its original sender by altering the signature, and then claiming the transaction was never received, although the article states this was not a huge problem for BTC I would disagree.

  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network, making features that relied on unconfirmed transactions easier to design and less risky.

  4. People, wallets etc are not forced to use Segwit, adoption has been slow, and there have been forks giving users entirely different options if they choose.

1 Like
#2070

1.increase the blocksize
2.the transaction malleability
3.segwit makes a second layer possible
4.no old transactions can be used

1 Like
#2071

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
• Increase block size from 1 mB to 2 mB
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
• Transaction malleability, by removing the ‘witness (signature)’ from the core block the Transaction ID remains unchanged AND the more transactions can be added into each block because of the reduced size per transaction.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
• Segwit supports the development of smart contracts and second layer protocols such as the Lightening network.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
• No – adoption of the segwith protocol is optional and fits within the rules of the former validation protocol (soft fork)

1 Like
#2072
  1. The alternative proposal to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1mB to 2mB.
  2. The ability to develop layer 2 solutions on bitcoin by fixing transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit opened the door to the ability for layer 2 solutions
  4. No
1 Like
#2073
  1. A suggested increase to the block size from 1 to 2MB
  2. Tx malleability
  3. Enabled second-layer creation and Lightning Network possible
  4. Since it is a Soft Fork, No
1 Like
#2074
  1. Increasing block size to 2MB.
  2. Segwit also fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information.
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols.
  4. No, implementations of Segwit was a soft fork it doesn’t expand previous functionality. Wallets and nodes can still use the old protocol.
1 Like
#2075

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1mB to 2mB.

  2. Segwit solved both scaling and transaction malleability issues.

  3. Segwit update enabled second layer protocols such as the Lightning network.

  4. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit.

1 Like
#2076

The alternative most people were proposing to segwit was to increase the blocksize storage to greater than 1MB.

Segwit not only helped Bitcoin transactions scale, it got ride of malleable delima, which would allow second layer solutions like Lightning Network the ability to work without worry of unconfirmed transactions. Segwit also helped allow other additions to the Bitcoin network to be possible like more complex transactions.

No one is forced to use Segwit, it is optional, but most projects and Bitcoin centric technologies are adopting segwit to reap the benefits.

1 Like
#2077
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase of the limit to the block size.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction malleability - or the ability to alter the identity of a transaction id prior to confirmation allowing dishonesty and potential theft
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit allows the signature to be stored separate from the actual block. This allows the possibility of layer two building
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    no as it is a soft fork
1 Like
#2078
  1. To increase the block size.
  2. Fixed malleability by removing the signature from the block to make it lighter and allow for more transactions.
  3. By second layer protocols.
  4. No, however adoption continues to increase.
1 Like
#2079
  1. Increase the size of the blocks, which will create a mass production of hard fork updates.
  2. This new process allows for more transactions to be stored on a block, since you can store your private key, a.k.a. your digital signature, outside of the block.
  3. Segwit allows for the lightning network, which is a protocol that makes second layer solutions possible.
  4. No, you don’t have to. Some wallets like Trezor, Ledger, etc have incorporated segwit into their network, but some are still working on adding it.
1 Like
#2080

Digital signature is not the same as the private key, storing private keys on the blockchain would be a security issue. The unlocking script, that unlocks the outputs, also called a witness has been put out of the transaction and that is now stored in the new data structure. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#2081

  1. Alternative to Segwit was to increase a block size limit which would result in hard fork. Later was created Bitcoin Cash as hard fork from Bitcoin, which has block size limit of 4MB.

  2. Segwit solved also the transaction malleability (an option to change the signiture which affects a transaction ID (hash) and makes users to double spend.

  3. Becase Segwit solved the transaction malleability, it supported to implement Lightning network (as second layer protocol).

  4. No, because it is a soft fork.

1 Like
#2082
  1. The proposed alternative to SegWit was increased block size but many people did not like this as firstly it produced a hard fork and secondly it meant that the network would become more centralised as more expensive equipment would be needed to mine each block.
  2. SegWit also solved the malleability problem as the signature was the easiest thing to change on a transaction, now the signatures are held separate from the transaction so the transactions hash stays the same even in you change the Sig.
  3. By simplifying the transaction segwit has made it easier for layer 2 solutions like the lighteneing network to be built on top of it.
    4)SegWit is a soft fork so only 50% of people are required to use it for it to be viable, but no one node is forced to use it.
1 Like
#2083

  1. Increasing block size.

  2. Segwit fixed transaction malleability.

  3. Segwit (moving transaction signature outside the block) enables development of lightning network

  4. No. Segwit was soft fork upgrade.

1 Like
#2084

  1. Proposition was to increase the size of the block. It would not work because the same problem would happen in the future so it is only a temporary solution. It would also result in a hard fork.
    Additional issues would be centralization (more powerful hardware required) and slower propagation between nodes through the internet due to the size of the blocks which would lead to more forks and stale blocks.

  2. Segwit solved the problem of transaction malleability. It is the ability to change the digital signature therefore changing the transaction ID but without invalidating that transaction. That way people can be tricked into re-issuing the payment more than once.

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

  4. No. SegWit is a soft fork upgrade so old nodes that haven’t yet upgraded will still recognize new blocks as valid.

1 Like
#2085

[quote=“filip, post:1, topic:8408”]

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

increasing the block size.

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

it solved the malluability issue also.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

lightning is a 2nd layer protocol, which Segwit fix enabled the development of.

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

No as it was a soft fork. most wallets moving to accept segwit though.

1 Like
#2086

  1. the proposed alternative was to increase block size to 2mb.

  2. transaction ID malleability

  3. segwit was first integrated into the lightning network before being adopted into the bitcoin network. this integration made second layer solutions possible.

  4. no they are not forced to use segwit. it is a soft fork so the majority will rule and any nodes that have not updated will create stale blocks.

1 Like
#2087
  1. Increased block size.
  2. TX malleability.
  3. Lightning network is a second layer solution that makes it possible to take frequent and small tx off chain and then adding them together later on.
  4. No, it was a soft fork solution.
1 Like