Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2229
  1. An increase in block size which would cause a hard fork like Bitcoin Cash.
  2. It solved transaction ID malleability
  3. It allowed second layer solutions to be used such as lighting
  4. Its optional since it was a soft fork, not all wallets support it yet
1 Like
#2230

Segregated Witness :page_facing_up: | :eye:

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    As an alternative to changing the transaction structure an increase of the block size was proposed and actually implemented as a hard fork that resulted in BCH as a separate cryptocurrency.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Improving the scalability of the BTC network was a welcome side effect of fixing the issue of transaction malleability. Before the update it was possible to change transaction ids (and the subsequent hash) through minimal changes in scripts and signature data which opened the door for confusion and fraudulent activity.

  3. How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit facilitates the development of 2nd layer solutions that rely on unconfirmed transactions because it reduces their risk of being changed/manipulated before they are settled on chain.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Being a softfork the implementation and use of Segwit is not mandatory for the network participants. Nonetheless, Segwit has seen wide adoption.

1 Like
#2231

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing the capacity of the block size

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

Segwit reduced the impact of transaction malleability by separating the signature from the transaction. In that way, retrospectively altering the signature does not alter the integrity of the original transaction recorded in the blockchain

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit enables deployment of second layer solutions such as lightning network. The latter enables frequent smaller transactions to be prepared off-chain and only etched into the blockchain when the users are ready

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

No, the old transaction protocol can still be used, but the Segwit protocol is being progressively being rolled out across the bitcoin ecosystem (wallets, exchanges, etc)

1 Like
#2232
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size (this is what Bitcoin Cash did in their protocol).
  2. Segwit solves more than just the scaling issue, it allowed to second layer solutions to more easily be developed and implemented. Segwit allowed for MAST, Schnorr signatures and TumbleBit.
  3. Segwit and the Lightning network are connected as Segwit solved issues with tx malleability which then makes second layer solutions (such as the Lightning Network) less risky and easier to design…
  4. People, wallets and other services are/were not forced to use Segwit, as the update is backwards compatible, and not all wallets updated to the new Segwit protocol at the same time.
1 Like
#2233
  1. Increase the size of new blocks, hard fork.
  2. Tx id malleability.
  3. Segwit make second layer solutions possible.
  4. No
1 Like
#2234
  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size. A disagreement in the community regarding scaling solutions resulted in a hard fork, creating a new chain by the name of Bitcoin Cash. The protocol change for Bitcoin Cash increased the block size from 1MB to 2MB instead of implementing Segwit.
  2. In addition to being a scaling solution, Segwit solved the transaction malleability bug that was present in Bitcoin. A bug that allowed attackers to change the hash of a block without altering the contents of the transaction. This flaw not only posed a security issue, but also interfered with projects being built on top of the chain - such as second layer solutions and smart-contracts.
  3. Segwit fixes transaction malleability which is a huge issue for any second layer solution such as Lightning network. In a second layer solution, for a transaction to be agreed upon by two parties before it is added to a block on the chain, the transaction ID or the hash must be fixed. A TXID can be disqualified if it changes between the time it is signed and being added to the chain.
  4. No node is required to adopt Segwit since it is a soft fork update. This includes all people and services that use nodes for operation.
1 Like
#2235

  1. Was proposed to increase the block size to add more transactions , but actually it wasn’t the right solution.

  2. SegWit solves the transaction malleability by removing the signature information, and storing it outside the base transation block.

  3. Segwit makes second layer possible improving the transactions capacity.

  4. No, because it was a soft fork.

1 Like
#2236

What was a proposed alternative to SegWit?
Segwit2x was proposed by unhappy parts of the community but was cancelled in late 2017 after the acceptance of SegWit became clear. ‘2x’ proposed a simple increase in box size to 2MB with the intention of avoiding the serious transaction infrastructure changes that came with SegWit.

What did SegWit solve more than just the scaling issue?
By removing signatures (the witness) from the transaction hash function, SegWit solved the problem of transaction malleability. Signatures can be altered, and this created opportunities for a type of fraud/attack that takes advantage of unconfirmed transactions and which can trick bitcoin participants into sending funds multiple times.

How is SegWit and the Lightning network connected?
The Lighting Network is a layer 2 protocol built on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Under the Lightning Network, payment channels are created and each party in that channel deposits their “collateral” in bitcoin. Then, all micro transactions between these two parties are recorded off-chain in a channel record/ledger until either party elects to settle the bill between them, at which point the balance due is collected via a full on-chain transaction. In this way, transactions only occur on the blockchain when collateral is deposited and again upon settlement. This greatly reduces the amount of transactions that the bitcoin community has to mine.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use SegWit?
No. Money can be sent from legacy bitcoin addresses to SegWit addresses. Transaction fees and confirmation times should be better if using SegWit addresses.

2 Likes
#2237

  1. To increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB

  2. It solved the TX Malleability issue by removing the signature from the block

  3. When Segwit solved the TX Malleability issue it enabled the lightning network (2nd Layer) to function

  4. No, because it’s a soft fork

1 Like
#2238
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase size of block which leads to hard fork.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Fixed transactions malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Lightning network is second layer on top of bitcoin blockchain network. The malleability fix in Segwit made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design which was crucial for Lightning network.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, since it’s soft fork.
1 Like
#2239

Segwit2x was introduced later when Segwit was already activated. The proposed alternative at the time was to simply increase the block size. :slight_smile:

#2240
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing block size
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Malleability of transactions
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Lightening is second layer on Bitcoin network enabling different features

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit
    No they can use Bitcoin cash in soft fork …but most wallets are adopting
1 Like
#2241

Segwit is a soft fork and you can still make old style txs on Bitcoin. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#2242
  1. Proposed alternative was enlarging the block size…
    2.Transaction Malleability , this causes users to alter the tx id (signature) , the contents of the block could NOT be altered…
    3.Segwit Made it possible to build Second layer protocols on top of the existing protocols. Like lightning Network etc
    4.Not forced , but encouraged… Not everyone is exited about the segwit update …
1 Like
#2243

  1. The other alternative that was proposed was to increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB.

  2. It also solved the issue of Signature Malleability. This moved the signature outside of the block which now prevents the transaction ID from being changed when there is a change made to the signature.

  3. Segwit will now allow for the lightning network to be used by BTC. This is because it has enhanced safety by removing the signature malleability. The lightning networks does not require confirmations b/c it is handling smaller more frequent transactions. This will make things more safer when BTC is being transferred with no confirmations. This will help prevent scams, etc.

  4. No one is necessarily forced to use Segwit as that is not how the process of forks work.

1 Like
#2244

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The alternate proposal was a block capsize increase to 2mB.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It addressed the malleability problem of transactions and concerns by second layer protocols like Lightening.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    It made the Lightening network less risky and apparently easier on them in their design.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No. Excluding signatures is by choice. But any wallets not implementing the protocol would suffer higher fees without access to Segwit nodes. Miners can fit a relative 4x as many transactions into a block now and therefore would suffer less fee revenue by not adopting Segwit.

1 Like
#2245
  1. To increase the block size limit. (Bitcoin Cash)
  2. Segwit also solved the problem of transaction malleability.
  3. With the removal of transaction malleability, second layer protocols like the lightning network became safer to create. The lightning network also further increased blocks transaction capacity by removing smaller transactions off the chain until they were ready.
  4. Segwit is a soft fork that does not require others to adopt it, because even people who do adopt it will still fall under the protocol rules of people who decided against it.
1 Like
#2246

  1. An alternative was to increase block size.

  2. Segwit also solved transaction malleability. Signatures could be slightly altered which would intern effect the hash and consequently the transaction ID.

  3. Seqwit’s solving of TX mall. made the lightning network possible. Now the signatures are separate from the TX and there can be more TX per second and more security in the TX ID.

  4. No, it is a soft fork. That being said, adoption is happening quickly.

1 Like
#2247
  1. Block size increase
  2. The transaction malleability
  3. Made second layer solution possible
    4.No
1 Like
#2248

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
-The alternative was to increasing the block size.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
-Transaction malleability was also an issue.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
-By allowing a second layer apps to be build on top and reducing
tx malleability risk.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
-No because its not an hard fork so people can choose where to stay.

1 Like