Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#242

  1. Instead of SegWit, bigger block sizes was proposed to the Bitcoin network.

  2. SegWit fixed transaction ID malleability, making the network more secure.

  3. SegWit allowed the development of second layer protocols such as Lightning Network

  4. No, because SegWit was a soft fork, people using original Bitcoin wallets and sending transactions normally is still considered valid.

1 Like
#243

  1. Increasing block size limit

  2. it solved transaction malleability

  3. Segwit solved transaction malleability (the ability to change TX IDs) meaning that we can now use off-chain protocols.

  4. It was a soft fork which means that all nodes accept the new transactions.

1 Like
#244
  • To increase the size of the blocks.
  • It also solved the issue of transaction malleability.
  • Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
  • No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft fork).
1 Like
#245
  1. Increasing the block size to 2MB
  2. Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability
  3. Segwit allows the development of Lightning (second layer protocol)
  4. No, Segwit is a soft fork
1 Like
#246

To increase the block size rather than relying on a different TX structure.

It moved the signature from the data structure of the TX ID allowing for more transaction to be added to a 1mb block. This also solved the malleability issues of changing TX data that alters TX ID.

With the implementation of Segwit Bitcoin can now have second layer protocols added with out a hard fork.

No, they are not forced. They must update their wallets to use segwit to remove the signature from the data structure of a TX. Until they update all the TX they construct will use the old protocol prior to segwit.

1 Like
#247
  • A proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing current blocksize of 1mB to 2 mB.
  • Segwit solved, other than just the scaling issue, also the transaction malleability.
  • Segwit and the Lightning network are connected, in that Segwit made it possible to implement 2nd layer solutions, like Lightning network, on top of the blockchain itself.
  • People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit, however, not implementing this update can cause future problems for those services which haven’t implemented Segwit (yet). For instance not supporting future 2nd layer solutions/services/apps. This would create a longterm non surviveability.
    [/quote]
1 Like
#248
  1. Increasing the block size
  2. It solves transaction ID malleability and lowers fees
  3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible
  4. No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft work).
1 Like
#249

1.Proposal was increasing of block size
2.Solves transaction malleability by removing signature from the block transaction.
3.Segwit was first activated on lightning network - and with activating on Bitcoin network makes second layer possible.
4.No it is soft fork -previous rules are still valid

#250

  1. An increase in block size.

  2. With segwit transactions are no long malleable.

  3. Second layer solutions like Lightning network was not possible while the transaction malleability bug was present. Segwit allows development and use of these solutions to go forward.

  4. No, but adoption continues to grow.

1 Like
#251

  1. Remove the signature data from the block and put it into segwit. The hash will exclude the signature data.

  2. Segwit also resolved malleability issue of the transaction ID.

  3. Lightning network make use of segwit to develop a second layer protocol that takes frequent, small transaction off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain the users enables the settlement.

  4. No. The soft fork allows the old transactions to be used as well.

1 Like
#252

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    To increase the block size to 2mB

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

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Second layer networks are introduced (lightning network) , supported by Segwit

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, but it is advisable because of lower fees. It was a soft fork.

1 Like
#253

1 . The alternative was to increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB (i guess like BTC Cash)

  1. Segwit solved malleability as well.
  2. As Segwit fastens the transactions it has made possible Lightning Network to be created.
    4.At the moment you can choose between old blocks and segwit upgrade.
#254

Lightning network is a second layer. So it’s not first activated on lightning, but only on bitcoin itself.

#255

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the block size.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It solved Transaction ID malleability

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

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

1 Like
#256

Thanks for correction Fabrice

1 Like
#257
  1. Increasing the block size.
  2. Mitigated a “semi-social engineering” hack where transactions could have their transactions ids modified. Recipients could then trick the sender to resubmit their transactions actions again.
  3. Segwit allowed for the development of second layer protocols. Lightning is one such protocol.
  4. Segwit is a soft fork, so the answer is no. And since the majority of network participants are using it, the network does not split.
1 Like
#258
  1. Increase of block size, that would be a Hard fork. Bitcoin cash for example.
  2. Segwit solved transaction malleability bug.
  3. Segwit is fundation for Ligtning network. By removing possibility for transaction malleability, secure payment channels will allow bitcoin network to make large scale of transactions per second.
  4. No they aren’t
1 Like
#259

The bull run in 2017 when bitcoin’s price skyrocketed and many transactions were pushed through the network, it became evident that a scaling solution was needed to increase the transaction throughput for bitcoin because transaction times were increasing and fees increased as well.

A proposed scaling solution was to increase the block size from 1MB so that more transactions could be fit into a given block. Instead, the bitcoin developers implemented Segwit, which separates the signature data from the rest of the transaction data. Signatures are also referred to as witness information so by contraction we have Segwit from segregated witness. Incidently, Bitcoin Cash was (hard) forked from bitcoin through an increase in block size to 8MB.

Removing signature data from the transaction not only increased the number of transactions that could fit into a block, it removed transaction malleability. Before Segwit it was possible to have altered a single digit in a transaction signature and that would in turn change the transaction ID and this could have allowed double receiving. With Segwit the transaction ID hash does not include a signature.

Segwit, because it did away with transaction malleability, paved the way for the Lightning Network which is a second layer protocol relying on unconfirmed transactions and a peer-to-peer network. The result is that transaction throughput can be vastly improved from 7 per second to many thousands of transactions per second.

Segwit was a backward-compatible upgrade (soft fork) to the bitcoin network so the existing wallets and services would not be required to upgrade their code.

1 Like
#260

  1. The alternative solution to Segwit was to increase the blocksize.

  2. Segwit solved more than just the scaling issue, it solved the issue of transaction malleability where a transaction id could be modified and the recipient of the transaction could claim they did not receive funds so the sender would send more funds.

  3. Segwit allowed the lightning network to be easier and less risky to develop in bitcoin. By removing the signature data it would be less of a risk to settle smaller transactions off-chain before being added to the blockchain.

  4. Because Segwit isn’t a hard fork, people, wallets, and other services aren’t required to use Segwitz.

1 Like
#261

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing block size to 2MB

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

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit allowed the development of Layer 2 protocols, including Lightning network.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, this was a soft fork and has slowly gained adoption without the need for a hard fork.

1 Like