Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2269
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Imcrease block size to more than 1MB
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Malleabilty, building on top second layers of protocols
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Lightning is a second layer protocol build on SegWit,
  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, it was a softfork, addopted by different wallet manufactures over time
1 Like
#2270
  1. To increase the block size (BCH)
  2. Segwit fixed a ln exploit that would allow someone to corrupt the hash of the signature, leading to the tx id being changed.
  3. 2nd layer protocols like the Lightning Network are possible due to the tx malleability issue being fixed by Segwit.
  4. They are not required, however it’s highly encouraged, and support is/has constantly grown.
1 Like
#2271

  1. An alternative to segwit was to increase the block size. The increase in block size would cause a hard fork.

  2. Segwit solved transaction malleability so there is added security and the transaction can’t be modified.

  3. Segwit and lightning are connected because it acts as a layer on top.

  4. No, the transactions are still able to validate.

2 Likes
#2272
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing the block size.

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

The transaction malleability issue.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

The lightning network was possible because of Segwit as it is a second layer protocol.

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

No, as it is only a soft fork.

1 Like
#2273

An increased block size.

The transaction malleability bug that enabled the manipulation of transaction IDs

Thanks to the malleability fix, unconfirmed transactions, such as those on the lightning network, are far less vulnerable.

No, as it is a soft fork, all new blocks still fall under the old rules.

1 Like
#2274
  1. Increase the size of the block from 1 mB to 2 mB
  2. The signature malleability
  3. Segwit enables the use of a second layer
  4. No
1 Like
#2275
  1. Increasing the block size
  2. Decrease full blocks by removing the signature. A great side affect was that the TXID couldn’t be changed, because another received signature wasn’t possible anymore. The hash was only based on inputs and outputs excluding signature.
  3. By the creation of second layer solutions made possible by Segwit.
  4. No, they don’t. Just a soft fork.
1 Like
#2276

  1. BCH increasing the block size through a Hard Fork

  2. Tx Malleability

  3. Segwit solved Tx malleability which made features that use unconfirmed Tx’s (like the Lightning Network) more reliable, less risky, and easier to design.

  4. No, because Segwit was implemented as a soft fork you can still send Non-Segwit Tx’s.

1 Like
#2277
  1. Increase block size to 2 MB.
  2. It solved the malleability issue where a signature could be changed.
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network.
  4. No
1 Like
#2278
  1. Segwit is a soft proposal and Segwit 2X is a hard fork proposal and another alternitve to Segwit is larger blocks in the chain.
  2. Segwit solved the transaction malleability thereby enabling the lightning network an overlay network of micropayment channels, hypothetically resolved the scaling problem by enabling virtual unlimited numbers of instant, low fee transactions to occur off chain.
  3. Segwit supports the development of 2nd layer protocols like lightning, and allows for instant , low fee transactions to occur off chain.
  4. No one is forced to use Segwit, although almost all nodes do.
1 Like
#2279

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to simply increase the block size limit, which is what bitcoin cash did as a hardfork off of bitcoin.

  2. Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability, which allowed people to change the signatures associated with a transaction without changing the transaction itself, thus changing the transaction id, allowing them to effectively “charge” an individual twice.

  3. Segwit and the Lightning network are connected, as Segwit allows for small, frequent transactions being taken off-chain to be processed later less risky.

  4. Since Segwit was a softfork, people, wallets, and other services are not forced to use it.

1 Like
#2280

Segwit2X was a thing when segwit was already activated. I think it was basically just segwit with larger blocks :slight_smile:

1 Like
#2281
  1. A proposed alternative was increasing the block size
  2. Transaction ID malleability
  3. Segwit made the lightening network possible
  4. They are not forced as it was a soft fork but most people have either transitioned or are starting too
1 Like
#2283
  1. Increase the block size.
  2. The transaction malleability got solved.
  3. Segwit is a supporter of the second layer solution that is the lightning network.
  4. No, old transactions can also be used.
1 Like
#2284

Yes, segwit + double the blocksize

1 Like
#2285
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

A. Making block size larger, which Blockcoin Cash did do.

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

A. It fixed a bug in the bitcoin code called: Tx Malleability. It also allowed for development of more complex features such as 2nd layer protocols, smart contracts; and easier deployment of Lightning Network

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

A. Lightning Network allows payments to be securely routed across multiple peer-to-peer payment channels. Nodes on LN are connected via these payment channels established on the underlying Bitcoin Blockchain by Segwit; great increasing Tx’s per second on the block.

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

A. No, it was a soft fork.

1 Like
#2286

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size, which would have the negative effect of miners requiring stronger hardware, requiring a faster internet connection and would make hashing take much longer, thus increasing transaction time.

  2. Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability, reducing fraudulent activities such as theft and transaction manipulation.

  3. The Lightning network is an additional layer protocol built on Segwit, allowing for more smoother, efficient and frequent transactions to occur.

  4. Nope…

1 Like
#2287

  1. Proposed alternative to segwit was increased block size.

  2. Segwit also solved TX malleability.

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

  4. No.

1 Like
#2288

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing block size, which would produce a hard fork.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

It was a fix to transactions malleability problem, by removing the signatures within the transaction block, making no longer possible to modify the transaction-id.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

After solving the malleability problem, it enables a second-layer protocol development, making it impossible to modify the transaction ID. This made features that rely on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to develop.

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

They are not forced to use it, since it is a soft fork. Not every wallet is yet updated to Sewit.

1 Like
#2289

It wouldn’t really increased either. It would increase the merkle tree calculation. But once the root hash is calculated its used in the block hashing process and wouldn’t really effect it much.
Technically it would also decrease transactions time, but it would leave transactions vulnerable to malleability :slight_smile:

1 Like