Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2148

[quote=“filip, post:1, topic:8408”]

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increase block size. Create a hard fork

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It also solved transaction malleability.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit supports second layer solutions.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No one is forced to use Segwit as it is a softfork.

2 Likes
#2149
  1. to increase blocksize
  2. the issue of malleability meaning the ability to change sinatures , then affecting the txid
    3.segwit allows the ability of second layer protocoles to be added
    4.its not a must but over time it will be standard , the option is to change to btch where they expanded blocksize
1 Like
#2150

Its already a standard, but you can still use old style tx as well. :slight_smile:

#2151

An increase in the block size from 1 MB to 2 MB, which resulted in the hard fork that is Bitcoin Cash.

A problem known as malleability, where the signature within a TX could be slightly altered to create a different TX ID, yet leave the TX data itself intact.

The Lightning network depended on a solution to the malleability problem and Segwit became its foundation without requiring a hard fork.

No, Segwit is not a fork or different coin and is compatible with legacy nodes.

1 Like
#2152

Lol, I just realized after watching the next video that Segwit is a soft fork. The link in the reading assignment about the progress of Segwit specifically stated that its not a fork, it’s a “feature”.

1 Like
#2153

Yeah, It’s still a fork, a soft fork.

#2154

Well, it is a special kind of fork indeed. It didn’t really change the blocks structure but the way how tx are interpreted and is more a feature wallets must update to handle them, not the nodes itself. But the nodes must also be able to store and query segwit data, that is why its also considered a softfork(ish). :slight_smile:

#2155

  1. A proposed alternative was a larger block size limit.

  2. Segwit also solves the problem of transaction malleability. As the signature is outside the transaction data structure, any change to the signature will not impact the transaction id.

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

  4. No, it is a soft fork.

1 Like
#2156

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing block size
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction ID malleability and support developments of second layer protocols such as lightning network
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit supports second layer solutions one of them is Lightning network
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, segwit wallets are backwards compatible with the legacy wallets

1 Like
#2157

Segwit Reading Assignment.

  1. The proposed alternative to segwit is the scaling of the block size from 1MB to 2MB or more, which brings along with it the following.
  • transactions malleability
  • confirmation of transaction delays
  • increase centralization.
  • more problem with stale blocks and forks.
  • propagating to the network issues.
    The above listed will result in the adoption of the update to fall.
  1. Apart from the scaling issue solved by segwit, it also solved the following.
  • signature malleability associated with bitcoin
  • allowing a second layer protocol to be added like lightning.
  • decreases the time in propagating issues through the network.

  1. The way segwit and lightning are connected is that lightning, which rely on unconfirmed transaction to be less risky and easy to design, created a second layer on top of bitcoin, enabling fast and cheap transaction. The segwit solution to malleability eliminates the risk and practicality associated with lightning.

  2. People’s wallets and other services are not forced to use segwit as the adoption process is going on gradually. The scaling option of increasing the block size from 1MB to 2MB or more is available. For those choosing to implement a larger block size limit that rely on transaction structure, there is bitcoin cash, a fork.

1 Like
#2158

  1. Increased block size

  2. Transaction maleability

  3. You can’t really start expediting payments via a second layer (lightning) network if maleability is still an issue.

  4. No it was a soft fork

1 Like
#2159

To increase block size for more capacity for transactions.

Capacity in a block, basically lighten the blocks load,for adding more transactions to the block.

Segwit supports second layer development, Lightening network is a second layer.

Not at all it is a choice, to update. Yet being continually being adopted, and mostly likely will. Segwit is a Soft fork.

1 Like
#2160

An alternative was to increase the block size limit from 1 MB to 2 MB.

Segwit also solved the tx malleability problem. Due to this problem it was possible to alter the tx ID (hash) because the alterable signatures were stored inside of the transactions.

The tx malleability problem prevented the development of second-layer protocols such as the Lighning network.

Segwit is a soft fork update. As such it is compatible with the previous version of the Bitcoin protocol.

1 Like
#2161
  1. To increase the block size limit.
  2. It also solve transaction malleability.
  3. Sewgit made second layer possible.
  4. No, segwit is a soft fork and doesnt obligate users to update.
1 Like
#2162

1- A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase block size, as implemented in Bitcoin Cash.

2- In addition to the scaling issue, Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability. This allowed for the development of second-layer protocols and smart contracts.

3- Lightning Network is a second-layer protocol that allows small transactions to be made off-chain. It relies on unconfirmed transactions and was made easier to design by the malleability fix.

4- People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit. Its use has become standard because of the reduced of transaction fees and added potential of second-layer protocols.

1 Like
#2163
  1. A block size increase from 1mB to 2 mB.
  2. Transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocol, which made any feature reliant on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
  4. No, old transactions can still be used but not all would be accepted.
1 Like
#2164
  1. Increasing the Block size
  2. Speed and lower transactions
  3. Segwit allows lightning and similar second layer protocols to development of enhancing bitcoin’s scope and potential.
  4. No some are operating with the old version without Segwit.
1 Like
#2165

  1. increasing the tx size per block.

  2. it solved the issue of transaction malleability.

  3. segwit allowed for the development of the lightening network " a second layer protocol".

  4. no its an updated feature that can be implemented onto older wallets but not a must.

1 Like
#2166

Why would the not be accepted? :slight_smile:

#2167

Cheaper transactions are a bonus because of the witness being moved out of the block but more importantly it solved the malleability issue. :slight_smile: