Segwit Reading Assignment

[Art_Small]

@Aran

Segwit also solved the transaction malleability problem. Transaction malleability allowed the modification of the transaction id which enabled fraud.

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increasing the size of the block from 1MB to 2MB or Bitcoin Cash.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue. Transaction malleability allowed the modification of the transaction id which enabled fraud.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? Segwit allows for layer two transactions

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No but people, wallets, and other services are adopting to Segwit otherwise you can use Bitcoin cash.

[Art_Small]

Summary

This text will be hidden

delete

[Grant1]

1.Block Size increase leading to A Hard fork such as BitcoinCash
2. Easier deployment of lightning network with TX ID malleability
3. Segwit enabled lightning
4 No, its a soft fork

[Forrest_King]

1. Basically, Bitcoin Cash, increasing the block size

2. It protected against transaction malleability

3. Segwit enabled new layers of protocols, like the lightening network, to process tx’s faster with the better security

4. No, they must choose to adopt it

[Alko89]

@Bulky

that the transactions wigh less, which means that bitcoin can process greater output

That’s the solution to the scaling issue. Segwit also solved the issue with tx malleability.

[hammer88]

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?
   A1: To just increase the block size to 2MB.
   A2: It also resolved the Transaction ID malleability issue.
   A3: The introduction of Segwith allows the use of second layer protocols like the Lightning network.
   A4: No, they are not as it was a Softfork so old nodes are still on the network and not implementing it.

[Jose_Hernandez]

1. Larger block size

2. It solved the transaction malleability problem

3. Segwit implementation allowed for more scaling solutions like the lightning network

4. No, since it is only a softfork

[Niek604]

1. increasing block size
2. tx malleability problem
3. supports 2nd layer protocol which would increase transaction capacity by taking small transactions off chain to settle them on the blockchain once the users are ready are ready
4. no

[Bartek]

1. The alternative that was proposed was to increase the block size so more TX’s would fit into the block, but that would lead to hardfork.

2. By removing signatures out of TX, it solve the problem of TX malleability, because even though someone would change the signature, it doesn’t change the TX ID.

3. By fixing the problem of the TX malleability, Segwit made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. It made second-layer protocols possible.

4. No, because it’s a soft fork, the nodes without update still falls within the rules before update.

[MBF-Lifestyle]

1: The proposed alternative to segwit was, increasing the block size.

2: Segwit also solved the transaction malleability and transaction fees.

3: Segwit makes the Lightning network supported

4: No, old systems like addresses and wallets and still be used.

[Shakeel]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

A block size increase was the alternative propositon to SegWit.

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

SegWit also solved transaction malleability.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit made it possible to support the development of second layer protocols which is what the Lightning network is.

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

No because it’s compatible with the old protocol

[CDrake]

1. Increasing block size.

2. It removed transaction malleability.

3. Segwit made second layer protocols possible.

4. It was a soft fork so old transactions are still allowed.

[jornack]

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

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

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, like Lightning.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, the SegWit upgrade was a soft fork and is compatible with the previous protocol.

[Dfogleman03]

1. one proposal was to increase block size.

2. transaction malleability

3. segwit made a layer 2 solution possible, such as lightning network.

4. because this was a soft fork, no.

[sadikzaya]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   reduce the size of the block
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   resolve the block size increase and remove the signature from transaction
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Lightning network is a second layer protocol which builds on segwit. Both together can make millions of transactions per sec instead of 7 to 10 per sec on older network
   Segwit makes second layer possible
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   no

[ChrisFREAM]

Homework 1/22/21 Segwit

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Increase the block size. +2MB

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   It solved the tx malleability issue and # of tx’s allowed per block

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit supports 2nd layer protocol dev, hence Lightning network layer

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No. Although it is becoming more common

[ccbit]

1. Increasing block size limit like bitcoin cash
2. Transaction malleability
3. Segwit allowed the development of second layer protocols like lightning because now we can change parts without changing the hash for the transaction id.
4. No, but they’re working on it.

[mruth98]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

A proposed alternative to SegWit was an increase in block size which also lead to a hard fork, Bitcoin Cash.

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

Segwit also introduced a new concept called ‘block weight’, which is a combination of the block size with and without the signature data and is limited to 4MB, while the block size limit for the base transactions remains at 1MB. This means that the SegWit upgrade is compatible with the previous protocol, and avoids the need for a hard fork.

1. How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

The lightning network was connected by further boosting bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.

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

In spite of the obvious advantages, the rollout of the upgrade is moving slowly. At pixel time, 14% of transactions were using the new format.

[zavo]

1. to increase the block size
2. solves tx malleability isue
3. segwit supports second layer solutions
4. No since segwit is a soft fork

[Alko89]

@mruth98

Segwit also introduced a new concept called ‘block weight’, which is a combination of the block size with and without the signature data and is limited to 4MB, while the block size limit for the base transactions remains at 1MB. This means that the SegWit upgrade is compatible with the previous protocol, and avoids the need for a hard fork.

This is what resolved the scaling issue. Segwit also solved the tx malleability issue.