Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2088

  1. A proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the block size (from 1mB to 2mB) - This is Bitcoin Cash

  2. What SegWit solved, more than just the scaling issue, was transaction malleability. Before, “scammer receivers” would alter the digital signature of the sender in the transaction - which wouldn’t change the transaction contents, but would alter the HASH. This was a security breach. By removing the digital signatures from the TX ID and storing them on the side (which increased the block weight to 4mb without compromising original block size of 1mB), the alteration of the digital signatures no longer affected the Hashing of the TX. This secured the network and allowed for the development of second layer solutions -> scaling

  3. SegWit and the Lightning Network are connected by the reliability of the system becoming more secure, which allowed for second layer solutions to scale the Bitcoin network and handle more transactions/second.

  4. People, wallets and other services are not required to use SegWit because it is a soft fork. However, remaining on the old system is congested and since it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the protocol, there is no benefit to staying off of it (in my opinion). About 40% of the entire Bitcoin Blockchain has upgraded to SegWit.

1 Like
#2089

1 larger block size 2mb
2 signature malleability
3 by making possible to have a lighting network(second layer )
4 no upgrade was a soft fork

1 Like
#2090
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase blocksize to accomadate more TXs
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Reduce Block Fullness 1mb Block and 4mb TX Sig Data and Remove TX Malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Seqwit solved the Malleability problem allowing second layer solutions to function lightning being one such solution
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No they are not but as time goes by and TX costs rise they will be better off switching to Segwit.
1 Like
#2091

  1. Increasing the block size to 2 MB.

  2. The malware issue where it was possible to change the signature of a transaction which in turn would change the transaction ID.

  3. Segwit supports second layer solutions. This allowed for the implementation of the Lightning Network.

  4. No, the use of Segwit is not mandatory.

1 Like
#2092
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    to make the blocks bigger and slower
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    it increased the nr. of tx that can be fixed inside a block
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Lightning works on top of the updated Segwit network as a second layer protocol
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    no, in fact many have not still implemented it
1 Like
#2093
  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was a hard fork with an increase to block size.
  2. Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability and prevented the ability for entities to change/manipulate unconfirmed transaction signatures to exploit a bug in the Bitcoin code.
  3. Segwit enabled Bitcoin to have support for development in second layer scaling and privacy solutions. This created a bridge for the Lightning Network to onboard small transactions.
  4. People who did not want to use Segwit are now using Bitcoin Cash or an alternative, but Major and normal players in the space have slowly come to adopt Segwit. No this was a Soft Fork, people are not technically forced to use Segwit.
1 Like
#2094

  1. One of the proposed alternatives to Segwit was an increased block size and would result in a hard fork in the bitcoin network. This ended up happening and resulted in the creation of bitcoin cash.

  2. Segwit solved the problem of transaction ID malleability.

  3. Segwit and the lightning network are connected because Segwit allowed for the possibility of a second layer.

  4. No the SegWit update was a soft fork but some wallets have added support for this update.

1 Like
#2095

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
larger block sizes

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction malleability

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning is a layer 2 solution for scaling so with segwit implemented it made any unconfirmed transactions still being verified less risky.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it was a soft fork so only updated nodes and exchanges will benefit until they upgrade.

1 Like
#2096
  1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size.
  2. What Segwit solves is the TX malleability and it also solves in lowering fees.

3.The Segwit supported the development of the lightning network.
4. No, it was a soft fork.

1 Like
#2097

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit fixed the malleability issue that anyone can change minor details so that the transaction ID can be modified.

  3. How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    They are connected in the way that Segwit helped make Lightning network possible.

  4. Are people, wallets, and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, they are not forced to use Segwit.

1 Like
#2098
  1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size in the hard fork litecoin.
  2. It solved the TX maleability problem.
  3. The fork also allowed for second layer protocols to be implemented.
  4. No this was a soft fork
1 Like
#2099
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was just increasing the overall Block Size Limit.
  2. Segwit supports the creation of Second Layer Protocols and Smart Contracts.
  3. Segwit and Lightning Network are connected because Segwit allows the Lightning Network to build on top of the Bitcoin Network. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions much safer.
  4. No one is forced to use Segwit, but it is very beneficial.
1 Like
#2100

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

  • To increase the size of the blocks.

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

  • SegWit fixed the problem with transaction malleability, where changing the signatures and scripts affected the transaction id, by removing the signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

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

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

  • No.
1 Like
#2101

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A proposed alternative to SegWit was an increase in block size (1 MB to 2 MB or more.) This increase in blocksize led to a hard fork.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    SegWit solved more than the scaling issue with - transaction malleability and lower fees.

  • How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit supported a second layer solution possible.

  • Are people, wallets, and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, people are not forced to use Segwit.

1 Like
#2102
  1. Raise the block size to 2Mb
  2. A bug which made the transaction malleable. It was possible to change a detail in the signature of transaction and therefore change the transaction ID of the transaction.
  3. Segwit allow the construction of second layer protocol such as lighting Network. Why? Because it is possible to rely on unconfirmed transactions and build additional features on it.
  4. No people are nott forced to use it, it is a soft fork. And will (or will not) be adopted by the community smoothly and progressivly
1 Like
#2103

1.The proposed alternative to the segwit upgrade was to have an upgrade that would increase the overall block size limit from 1MB to 2MB
2. Other than just solving the scaling issue segwit solved the problem of transaction malleability, which came from when a transaction is sent and a txid is created from a hash of the input the outputs and the signature to a recipient, the recipient could if they so choose, change the signature data (scriptsig) this would then create a new txid with the same tx and remove the original txid with the old unmodified signature data, making it appear to the sender that this tx was never done as it would not be available to find on block explorer under the original txid as it would be under a new txid.
3.Segwit and the lightening network are connected by the fact that segwit has solved a scaling issue by removing the signature data and making it seperate. A node or miner would only need the signature data once to append the new block to the blockchain in theory, this means nodes would be able to be smaller and run more efficiently and only sync with a larger node when it needs to query or settle tx as the larger nodes will still have the full latest blockchain including signatures, this in turn greatly increases the speed of the network as basically the small nodes are working off chain until they decide to connect.
4. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use the segwit upgrade as this upgrade was a soft fork not a hard fork which was a contraction rule upgrade and so still compatible with the previous consensus protocol before segwit was implemented.

1 Like
#2104

  1. Increasing the block size, which would create a hard fork and result in a new currency (bitcoin cash)

  2. Transaction malleability, making it such that people could not alter the signature after a transaction had been generated (because the signature was no longer part of the tx hash). This made layer-2 solutions that rely on unconfirmed transactions to be built, like the lightning network.

  3. Segwit made second layer protocols possible.

  4. No. It’s a soft fork, meaning that the updated consensus rules adhered to the old protocol.

1 Like
#2105
  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?
    lightning works on top of Segwit as a second layer protocol
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    no, its a soft fork
1 Like
#2106

  1. The alternative was to increase the block size making a hard fork which they also ended up doing for the community that wasn’t happy with the Segwit update and made bitcoin cash.

  2. The update created more security by removing the signature from the transaction so that if someone tried to change the signature the transaction ID would no longer be affected

  3. SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols like lightning network which will help scale future of bitcoin transactions.

  4. I’m not sure please help @filip 4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? My guess is no they can go to Bitcoin cash but wouldn’t you be forced to if you wanted to keep transacting in bitcoin?

1 Like
#2107

No, you can still use old addresses and old style transactions on Bitcoin. :slight_smile:

1 Like