Segwit Reading Assignment

[ravibahal]

1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size above 1MB.
2. It solved the transaction malleability issue also.
3. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transaction less risky and easier to build upon. Lightening network is an example of a second layer solution being build on the bitcoin protocol.
4. No although using it would allow for faster transactions and lowered fees.

[Lahiena]

1. An increase in block size
2. The transaction malleability issue and also it allowed second layer solutions
3. Segwit allows the lighting network to exist, as it is a 2nd layer solution
4. They are not

[legoboy85]

@filip

It’s time for a reading assignment about Segwit. Read through the following article https://www.coindesk.com/information/what-is-segwit , and answer the following questions.

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

1. to encrease the block size. Thats why we have bitcoin cash (hard fork), because not everyone was happy with Segwit.
2. Segwit also solve the transaction Mallebility. We can not now changed the signature and so changed the hash, because the signature is not in the transaction and the hash stays always the same.
3. Segwit also supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
4. no they are not.

[SimonLondon]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increase the block size limit

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

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightening needed the transaction malleability to be solved since it uses transaction IDs which could be changed previously

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No

[keithra1948]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Some believed that increasing to a larger block size limit would be a better alternative to changing the transaction structure. This lead to the Bcash fork.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Segwit also fixed the malleability bug in the code where the tx id could be modified thereby changing the hash.

3. How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit allows for off-change solutions like the lightning network, which makes it easier to send smaller tx - which aren’t as dependent on confirmation. This allows for faster transaction times.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, since this is a softfork only 51% majority was needed to implement it and old addresses work fine after the upgrade.

[Leo]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

An increase in the block size limit, rather than rely on a new transaction structure

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

By fixing the transaction malleability problem, supported the development of second layer protocols (such as the Lighting Network) and reduction of fees.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
By supporting the development of second layer protocols as LN.

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

No, it was a soft fork, making it optional for the nodes. However, as the adoption of the SegWit increased, they started to update and make their services compatible

[Rasa]

Increasing the blocksize

transaction malleability by removing the signature from the block and storing it outside which gives room for more transactions in the block.

The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design, like the lightning network.

No, it is up to the developers of their wallets/services to implement it if they want.

[pmk]

1. Increase the block size in megas.
2. Also solved the tx malleability issue.
3. Segwit allowed another layer to be built on top of BTC, which is the lightning network.
4. No.

[HotCrytoGuy45]

• What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  Increasing the block size like on Bitcoin Cash
• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  By having the signatures stored outside the transactions changing the signatures does not cause a change in the transaction-id like before when signatures was part of the transactions.
• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  Lightning network works with unconfirmed transactions and segwit makes unconfirmed transactions more secure.
• Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  No.

[Jimo]

1. Increase the max size of a block. Create a new hard fork like Bitcoin Cash.

2. It stoped transactions malleability.

3. Segwit allows a second layer of protocoll, enabling new applications.

4. No but cold wallets like Trezor and Ledger have implement support for Segwit other cold/hot wallets are working on it.

[toggen]

1. Increase in blocksize was also a possible solution
2. It also solved the Malleability issue by preventing signatures to alter the hash of the block
3. Lightening is a layer two solution that was possible after the malleability issue was fixed
4. No, they need to implement support for it first

[ale_koq]

@filip

• What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
• Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

1. Increasing the block size
2. Segwit removes signatures, fixes the malleability issue and enables creating second layer protocols.
3. Segwit enables second layer protocols such as lightning network.
4. Process is slow, it’s not mandatory, but they are willing to upgrade.

[Mark1]

1. Increase the block size
2. They solved the mallaabilty issue too by removing signatures so the TX id couldn’t be altered.
3. Segwit enables second layer protocols, for example, Lightning Network.
4. No, it is a soft fork.

[Dogge]

[quote=“filip, post:1, topic:8408”]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   2- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
2. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
3. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

1.It was to increase the size of the block and it lead to bitcoin Cash. A hard Fork.
2. It solved the mallebility.
3. Segwit supports Lightning network its a two layer solutions ontop of Btc.
4. No wallets can still use old protocol.

[dr_Rex]

1. an alternative proposal for Segwit was to increase the block size to 2mB

2. Segwit removed the signature of the transaction in order to create more space in the block. Segwit provided support for the second layer protocols. It also provided a solution for the transaction malleability and lower transaction fees

3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible

4. No it’s a soft fork

[chaneltiana]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

• The proposed alternative to Segwit was to allow the block size to increase from 1mB to 2mB.

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

• Besides scaling issues, Segwit solved the problem for transaction malleability.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• The Segwit and Lightning network are connected because Lightning builds on a second layer protocol on top of Segwit. This allows transactions to happen quicker.

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

• No since the old protocol is still applicable.

[rostyslavdzhohola]

@filip

It’s time for a reading assignment about Segwit. Read through the following article https://www.coindesk.com/information/what-is-segwit , and answer the following questions.

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

Answer:

1. The alternative to Segwit was an increase in the block size, which had become Bitcoin Cash.
2. Segwit allowed the development of layer two, the Lightning Network, and had boosted the development of more complex bitcoin smart contracts, Schnorr signatures, and TumbleBit.
3. Segwit allowed the development of the second layer solutions like Lightning Network. The malleability fix allowed less risky design that relies on unconfirmed transactions ( off the chain ).
4. Everyone had a choice to upgrade or not upgrade. Segwit was designed in a way that made it backward compatible, so wallets that don’t want to implement can still send their transactions. Also, people who were against the Segwit update created a fork and became Bitcoin Cash (Bcash).

[dot]

1: Make the block capacity bigger than 1 MB
3: In 2017 the Bitcoin community activated SegWit which enabled second layer solutions such as the Lightning Network.
4: No

[pepemadrid]

1. Increase the block size - as it was done in the hard fork that led to BCH
2. It avoided malleability - a manupulations of the transaction ID
3. Segwit is the condition for LN
4. No. They still can use the original system

[Villaltac]

1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from it’s 1mb limit, however the community was split on this as it seemed a temporary fix instead of a solution. what would happen when more people came onto the network and now 2mb was insufficient?
2. Sigwit not only solved the scaling issue(block size) but also solved a potential weakness in code called “transaction malleability” that allowed the receiver of a transaction the opportunity to change the transaction hash and claim the transaction never occurred; thus tricking the sending party to send another transaction.
3. Segwit allowed for second layer applications now that it had solved the transaction malleability hack.
4. No, as Segwit falls under the soft fork parameters and still keeps blocks sizes at 1 mb all nodes can still use whichever they choose… in fact this may even help as Segwit nodes can quarry larger old nodes to verify signatures.