Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2590
  1. An increse of block size which would lead to a hard fork.
  2. It avoid the block getting full and to stop the transaction malleability
  3. Segwit supports the second layer solution which is the lighting network
  4. No, its a soft fork. Its optional. Wallets are slowly including Segwit.
1 Like
#2591

1- The increase of the block size
2- Solved the transaction ID malleability, that allowed the development of second layer protocols
3- The malleability fix made features that relied on unconfirmed transactions possible, with the adding of the lightning network, that boosted bitcoin’s transaction
4- It was a softfork update, so there isn’t a need to upgrade because the transactions still can happen, but is advised to do so

1 Like
#2592
  1. Hard fork - to raise the size of a block to 2mb
  2. it solves the transaction malleability and lower fees
  3. lightening network was build on segwit
  4. No
1 Like
#2593
  1. Alternative to Segwit was to increase block size.
  2. It also solved ID malleability
  3. SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
  4. No they are not.
1 Like
#2594

  1. Many people thought increasing the block size limit instead of the transaction weight could have been another solution. This is probably one of the main reasons of the Bitcoin Cash fork.

  2. It solved the problem of transaction malleability.

  3. Segwit supports “layer 2” protocols updates, such as lightning network which should resolve Bitcoin’s scalability problem forever.

  4. Not at all. Many people are embracing the update but it’s not mandatory.

1 Like
#2595

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The alternative proposed was to increase the size of the blocks, causing a hardfork.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction Malleability and the possibility of a second layer.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Due to the upgrades of Segwit, the Lightning network was built as a second layer protocol on Bitcoin.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, because Segwit is a soft fork.

1 Like
#2596
  1. An increase in the block size which also lead to a hard fork.
  2. It solved the problem with transaction malleability, and therefore stopped the exploitation of transactions.
  3. It helped lightning network to be possible which is a second layer network. The lightning network also enables off chain transaction the potentially could help the limited TPS in the future ( i guess).
  4. No, because it is a soft fork however there is a large amount of exchanges such as kraken and coinbase that are using it.
1 Like
#2597

  1. Increasing the block size in order to fit more transactions.

  2. Yes. Segwit also fixed the Transaction Malleability issue by removing the possibility of the signature being altered.

  3. Segwit allowed layer two protocols/Lightning network to be possible.

  4. No, because the block size was not changed a hard fork was avoided allowing non updated nodes to exist.

1 Like
#2598
  1. increase block size
  2. the transaction malleability issue
  3. Segwit paved the way for the Lightning network to be built upon it furthering the consolidation of data and thus speed of operation
  4. No
1 Like
#2599
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  • To increase the size of the blocks
  1. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  • Transaction malleability; immutable transactions ID
  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  • SEGWIT ALLOWS FOR A SECOND LAYER PROTOCOL (sorry for shouting)
  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  • Blocks created without Segwit will be rejected, however Segwit is a soft fork, so no one is forced to use it. So, yes and no.
1 Like
#2600

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase the size of the block to solve full block issue.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Seagwit also solved the transaction malleability issue.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Seagwit allowed the development of second layer protocols such as Lightning Network on the top of the blockchain.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No. SegWit hasn’t been fully adopted by all Bitcoin network participants because it isn’t mandatory, but also due to different incentives between users in the ecosystem. Despite the benefits of SegWit, not all participants in the Bitcoin network have implemented it.

1 Like
#2601

  1. To increase the block size limit from 1 to 2 mB . This would be an hard fork and really resolve the scaling issue only in short term.

  2. Segwit are solving scaling issue introducing a new concept called block weight. This can happen reducing the single transactions weight, not increasing the block size. But the SegWit’s initial idea was to fix the transaction malleability, a bug in the code that allow to make some change in the signature of transaction, so that change the transaction hash. As a result we may lost the possibilty to confirmate the transaction to the malicious part but really the transaction (output and input) is already confirmed in the block chain but impossible to find.

  3. Solving the transaction malleability we can start implementing and best developing any other feauteres building on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Such as the Lightning Network, for small and fast transaction out of the main chain. Other second layer features are already in development.

  4. No, Segwit hasnt been already adopted by the whole network. The block size was not changed and the hardfork was avoided also if was added some little change not in the original code but through original syntax. There are already several nodes not updated allowed to work with the blockchain.

1 Like
#2602

Segwit blocks aren’t really any different, the difference is in the transaction structure and they are valid on both old and new nodes. Outdated nodes would not be able to spend these txs. :slight_smile:

#2603
  1. Increasing the block size was another proposed alternative.
  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability problem which was a foundational problem for second layer solutions like smart contracts.
  3. Lightening is a second layer solution so solving the transaction malleability problem was critical to lightening’s implementation.
  4. Because Segwit is a stronger architecture, it is to everyone’s benefit to adopt the architecture. Also, as second layer protocols become available, people will need to adopt Segwit in order to use the new protocols reliably.
1 Like
#2604

  1. A proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the block size limit.

  2. Segwit not only solved the scaling issue but also the Transaction Malleability issue by taking the signature data out of the transaction block, without affecting the transaction I.D.

  3. Lightning network is a second layer protocol that boosts BTC’s transaction capacity.

  4. No, some wallets and services have not integrated SegWit.

1 Like
#2605
  1. Maximum Block size increase. (1mB-2mB)
  2. Transaction Malleability
  3. SegWit has allowed 2nd layer protocols to be developed.
  4. No, SegWit was a soft fork. No one is forced to implement the new update.
1 Like
#2606
  1. Increasing the block size
  2. TX malleability
  3. Segwit made lightning network possible
  4. No, because it was a soft fork rather than a hard fork.
1 Like
#2607
  1. One proposal was to simply increase the maximum block size.
  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue.
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols (lightning network is one of these.)
  4. No, Segwit is a soft fork. Adoption is voluntary.
1 Like
#2608
  1. To increase the block size limit from 1MB to 2MB.
  2. Transaction Malleability. So people can’t change transaction ID to claim they never received the transaction.
  3. “The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.” Lightning network would be under that umbrella that uses unconfirmed transactions because they are taken off-chain and only confirmed once the final settlement happens where the users send the transaction to the main chain.
  4. No.
1 Like
#2609

  1. To create a rule change that would increase the block size via a hard fork.

  2. Transaction malleability. Before Segwit it was possible for a third party to slightly alter an unconfirmed transaction without making it invalid, thus also changing the hash of the transaction. Since the hash of the transaction is also its ID this was a potential security risk.

  3. Since the security of the Lightning Network is dependent on immutable non-broadcast transactions the transaction malleability had to be fixed before the launch of the lightning network.

  4. No, it was a soft fork.

1 Like