Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#202

  1. The alternative to SegWit was increasing the block size to be bigger than 1MB.

  2. SegWit solved the issue of transaction malleability and over time transaction fees should eventually drop because of the new format.

  3. The lightening network is a second layer protocol that allows for the furthering of bitcoin’s transaction capacity by keeping frequent, small transactions off chain and settling them on the blockchain only when the users are ready.

  4. People, Wallets and other services are not forced to use SegWit but as time goes on the new format will most likely become more widely used.

1 Like
#203

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    an alternative to segwit was an increase in the blocksize to 2mB, this would have ment thou, hardforking btc, splitting hashpower and community in 2 diffewrent chains.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    segwit solved the problems regarding Tx malleability, add the possibility to develop second layer protocols such as lightning network,and favored the development of more complex btc smart contract(MAST), put the base for an ulterior capacity increse(schnorr) and tumblebit.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    without solving the tx malleability issues made it easier and safer to design features that relies on unconfirmed tx.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    they are not forced being this a softfork.

1 Like
#204
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  • a hard fork increasing block size in order to store more transactions so BTC could scale

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Reduced transaction fees as Segwit adoption grows

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Helped to solve the transaction malability problem in layer 1 of the lightening network

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Currently there is no enforced rule to use Segwit but as adoption grows so will become more and more viable for wallets etc to use the protocol in order to remain competitive and relevant in the market

1 Like
#205

  1. a hard fork by increasing the block capacity from 1mB to 2mB

  2. the Problem with malleability

  3. With segwit second layer Solutions are possible

  4. No, because it is a soft fork

1 Like
#206

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Yes, it solve one bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability.

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

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    They are not, is a soft fork.

1 Like
#207

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was the increase of the block size. This idea was actually implemented, creating a hard fork that lead to Bitcoin Cash.

  2. Segwit solved also the transaction malleability problem.

  3. Segwit and Lightning Network are connected because Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, which Lightning Network is.

  4. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork.

1 Like
#208
  1. The proposed alternative was a larger block size which is what lead to the hard work bitcoin cash
  2. It also solved a malleability issue because now the signature was separate from the transaction and could not be altered and change the transaction ID a anymore.
  3. Segwit and lightning workers are connected because they allow for dealing with transactions that have not yet been confirmed and allow for the creation and use of smart contracts.
  4. No one is forced to use sehwit. As of the article 14% of transactions have it.
1 Like
#209
  1. Increasing the block size from 1mB to 2mB
  2. Fixed the malleability problem
  3. Segqit supports second layer protocol development because the malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
  4. No, it is a soft fork. Old version transactions can still be processed.
1 Like
#210
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    It was proposed to increase the block size.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit solve the issue with transaction malleability.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Because of fixing transaction malleability, there can be second layer protocols like Lightning network to further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, because it’s a soft fork.
1 Like
#211

It was proposed to raise the block size from 1MB to 2MB, but that only caused a hard fork, high tx fees, and additional problems for nodes on the network.

Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue by removing the digital signature from the hash of the transaction ID.

The lightning network is a second layer protocol that helps reduce the block size on the blockchain, by allowing multiple smaller transactions to be made with low fees and off of the blockchain until someone is ready to make one single larger transaction on the blockchain.

Because Segwit is a soft fork, older versions not using Segwit will be accepted.

1 Like
#212

  1. An increase in the block size.

  2. Transaction malleability where the signature can be changed without affecting the transaction itself.

  3. By resolving the malleability issue Segwit enabled the advancement of second layer solutions such as the Lightning network.

  4. No because SegWit was a soft fork.

1 Like
#213

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative to Segwit was a larger 2 MB bitcoin block size.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit solved transaction malleability which left the transaction ID vulnerable to attack.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit remediates transaction malleability which helps second layer solutions like the Lightning network that depend on a reliable transaction ID. Segwit also improves throughput for those networks by using block storage more efficiently.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No. Segwit was a soft-fork that permitted backward compatible bitcoin network use.

2 Likes
#214
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  • Increase block size
  1. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  • development of second layer protocols - “Lightning Nertwork”
  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  • The implementaion of segwit made second layer protocols possible
  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  • No
1 Like
#215

1- Increased block size

2- The malleability problem

3- Allows second layer solutions

4- No

1 Like
#216
  1. Bigger blocks was an option to segwit.
  2. Transaction malleability was the primary reason for the upgrade of segwit.
  3. Segwit allowed for the second layer lightning network solution.
  4. Your wallets are not required to use segwit.
1 Like
#217

  1. Increasing the block size.

  2. Transaction malleability because it separated the signatures from the transaction so if the receiver changed a little part of the signature it would not affect the transaction hash.

  3. The lightning network was able to be implemented because of segwit.

  4. No, wallets have the choice to support it though.

1 Like
#218
  1. Increased block size.
  2. Transaction malleability.
  3. SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
  4. No, because it’s a soft fork but its adoption is increasing.
1 Like
#219
  1. The proposed alternative was increase block size to 2MB, 8MB or 32MB but others were concerned with centralization aspect that might comes with it. Which Bitcoin’s most important fundamental reason of its creation is decentralization and security.
  2. The SegWit solve not only the scaling issue but also the malleability problem when a participant tamper the signature and steel fund.
  3. It is connected through unconfirmed transactions that will be less risky and easy to design after malleability fixed by segregated witness protocol.
  4. No, but they are given the option to upgrade to SegWit at their own pace while still can use the old format.
1 Like
#220
  1. Increase the block size
  2. Malleability
  3. With second layer protocols
  4. No
1 Like
#221

  1. Increasing the block size limit.

  2. Transaction malleability - changing the signature once the transaction has been added to the mempool. This previously changed the hash/ID of the transaction, but with SegWit the signature is not part of the transaction ID.

  3. Second layer solutions which rely on unconfirmed transactions are now more viable, as it’s harder to tamper with unconfirmed transactions.

  4. No it is a soft fork update, but miners are incentivised to update their node to run on SegWit. The old transaction type is still accepted into blocks, but nodes that does not run SegWit are hindered from adding new blocks.

1 Like