Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2710
  1. To increase the block size.
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. SegWit paved the way for second layer protocols, like the lightening network.
  4. No
1 Like
#2711
  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 A increase in block size, bitcoin cash is example of this
2 It fixed transaction malleability which makes the network more secure
4 Segwit made the change to second layer protocols easier. The lightning network helped with this and was built off of this.
4 No they are not. The old addresses and such can still be used.

1 Like
#2712
  1. Block size to increase.

2.Transaction ID malleability and fee’s cost.

3.SegWit makes Layer 2 and Lightning network possible.

4.No, it is a soft fork.

1 Like
#2713
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was making the block size larger than 1mB.
  2. Segwit also increased security as now transactions could aways be found by the tx hash instead of the signature.
  3. Segwit allowed for development of second layer protocols due to less risk with unconfirmed transactions as well making things easier to design.
  4. Not necessarily, many wallets can accept both forms of code. But there are some that are restricted to one or the other. From my experience larger exchanges use Segwit while cold storage gives you the option.
1 Like
#2714
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing the block size to allow for more TXs.

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

TX malleability.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

By fixing TX malleability, the development of second layer protocols like the Lightning Network was possible,

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

Since the Segwit upgrade was a soft fork and did not result in a split, every wallet is compatible with the old protocol. But as more wallets implement this upgrade, more and more TXs will be able to be done using Segwit with lower fees.

1 Like
#2715
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  • A bigger block size
  1. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  • It solved the Transaction malleability issue as well
  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  • They keep the signatures off-chain
  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  • The old system remains, but the Segwit allows fees to be reduced and thus more attractive to use.
1 Like
#2716

1.Increasing the block size from 1mB to 2mB. This lead to a hard fork, and a new coin-Bitcoin Cash.

  1. SegWit address the issue of Transaction Malleability, as well as supporting the development of second layer protocols.

  2. SegWit had to be introduced for the lightening network to exist. Tx Malle. prevented 2nd layer solutions.

  3. No, as its a soft fork, old addresses can still be used, but wallets are adding SegWit support.

1 Like
#2717

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase the capacity if blocks

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Solved as well the malleability transaction issue,

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    with the implementation of Segwit, it is allow the implementation of second layer protocols, which is the case of lightnining network as well as taking off chain smaller transaction making the bitcoin network lighter

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Not necessarily but since more transaction can be fit in every block the segwit update, it is more attractive and efficient for miners

1 Like
#2718
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Alternative way to solve the problem of more tx then usual is to increase the block size
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    SegWit solve also the malleability of the tx, more detailed the tx ID malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit create lightening network, supports the new layer solutiion
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No they are not
1 Like
#2719

  1. Get a larger capacity block

  2. Solved the Transaction Malleability

3 It make the second layer possible

  1. No
1 Like
#2720

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

The alternate to Segwit was to increase the Blocksize to 2mB this happened with the creation of Bitcoin Cash.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Segwit also solved a bug in bitcoinds code called transaction malleability. This flaw allowed anyone to change small details (signature) that modified unconfirmed transactions and therfore changing their hash value.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit allowed second layer protocol like the lightening network (offchain transactions)

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

1 Like
#2721
  1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size limit from 1MB. This would have created a hard fork. This is ultimately what bitcoin cash chose to do once it had forked from bitcoin.
  2. Segwit solved transaction malleability which prevented more complex features from being developed. People used to be able to change a signature in a tx which would change the hash and thus tx ID because signature data was still part of the tx. Fixing the transaction malleability issue made it less risky and easier to design features that relied on unconfirmed transactions.
  3. Segwit made possible the development of second layer protocols such as the Lightning Network.
  4. People, wallets and services are not forced to use Segwit because it is compatible with the previous protocol (soft fork). The adoption and transition to Segwit was not immediate and was an ongoing process for many months.
1 Like
#2722

A proposed alternative to Segwit was making the block size bigger, which is the reason the Bitcoin Cash fork happened.

Segwit not only improved scalability, but also solved its main objective, to impede transaction malleability. This is when the signature of a transaction was modified, so that it would in turn modify the whole transaction ID. Transaction malleability provided some leeway for fraud whilst making 2nd layer solutions harder to implement.

One of these second layer solutions is Lightning network, which will only settle transactions on chain when the users are ready, allowing for lots of small transactions to happen off chain. Just like Segwit, it will also ease scalability.

One of the best aspects of Segwit is that it does not constitute a hard fork, so non-Segwit blocks and transactions can still be validated by nodes.

1 Like
#2723

1.The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size.
2. Initially it wanted to fix the transaction malleability, but as a result of this it helped with the scaling of the block size.
3. Segwit allowed second layer protocols such as the lightning network to conduct off chain transactions.
4. Segwit was only a soft fork, traditional methods still exist.

1 Like
#2724
  1. the alternative was to increase the block size which was adopted by a part of the community that created the Bitcoin cash via hard fork
    2)created opportunity for second layer protocols to be build on top. The malleability fix also reduced the risk in the transactions. Lowered the fees as well as the blocks were slimmed down and could fit more transactions
  2. segwit facilitated the introduction of lighting network as a second layer protocol
  3. no as it is a soft fork. It was gradually adopted by hardware wallets (currently SegWit and native SegWit)
1 Like
#2725

  1. To increase the Block size.

  2. The Malleability issue. By allowing the signatures to be stored outside the Transaction and allowing more to be stored per block.

  3. SegWit allowed 2 layer solutions to be added to the bitcoin blockchain. Lightning Network is used to help boost transaction capacity.

  4. No

1 Like
#2726

  1. Increasing the block size. This led to the Bitcoin Cash fork.

  2. Fees will drop and second layer protocols would get a boost. Also fixed transaction malleability by placing the signature info outside the base transaction block.

  3. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

  4. No, it was a soft fork.

1 Like
#2727

  1. One of the proposed alternatives to Segwit was just to up the block size from 1mB to 2mB, but this would cause a hard fork. In fact, it did. In comes Bitcoin Cash.

  2. Segwit solved a bug Bitcoin’s code called transaction malleability. With transaction malleability, the receiver of a transaction could change the signature in the transaction, which would result in a change of the hash. This allowed the receiver to claim that they never received the transaction, when in reality they did. They just erased the proof by changing the transaction id.

  3. Segwit, by removing transaction id’s from the block, eliminated the transaction malleability bug, which kept the lightning network from being practical. The lightning network allows for p2p transactions to be settled outside of the blockchain in instances where the two parties would have multiple transactions over a certain amount of time. Once the two parties were finished with their series of transactions, they would propogate those transactions to the network to be verified. But before segwit, this would require a high level of trust, where once segwit came in to effect, it allowed for trustlessness.

  4. People, wallets, and miners are not forced to use segwit as this is a soft fork.

1 Like
#2728
  1. Increase block size rather than use a new transaction signature.
  2. Segwit fixed the blockchain issue of transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, the lightning network. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. The lightning network will further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.
  4. No. the adaptation of segwit is slow. Wallets are not mandatory to use Segwit.
1 Like
#2729
  1. The bitcoin cash implemented a block size increase instead of modifying the transaction structure.
  2. By moving the signatures outside of the transactions, Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue.
  3. By solving the transaction malleability issue, Segwit allowed the development of second layer protocols such as the Lightning network which rely on unconfirmed transaction and couldn’t be securely implemented if the malleability issue wasn’t fixed.
  4. They are not forced to update since it was a soft fork. It only requires a majority of miners to upgrade to be adopted.
1 Like