Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#262
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the bock size from 1 mB to 2 mB
  2. Apart from solving the scaling issue, Segwit also solved the malleability problem that made it possible to change the signature and thus the hash of the block without changing the other content of the block.
  3. The lightning network makes it possible to send repeating transactions fast using segwit
  4. No
1 Like
#263

  1. an increase in block size

  2. it fixed a flaw where users could tamper with transaction identities

  3. SegWit is the foundation for the Lightning Network. By eliminating the possibility for transaction malleability, secure payment channels can be created that will eventually allow the Bitcoin network to process millions of transactions per second. Lastly, SegWit is a way to help Bitcoin scale to accommodate its ever-expanding user base, without forcing a hard-fork.

  4. No, the new rules still fit in the prev rule set so it was a soft fork. However the adoption rate continued to grow since implementation

1 Like
#264

Q: What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A: Simple increase of the blocksize (which can’t be more than a temporary solution and also would lead to more problems).
Q: What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
A: Also the transaction malleability is removed (manipulation of senders signature no longer has an effect).
Q: How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
A:By solving the tx malleability problem “mini-transactions” are made possible where two parties can send transactions to each other and after finishing this process only settling the outcome on the block chain.
Q: Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
A: Wallets are not forced to implement SegWit, but they would support further development and adaptability of BTC.

2 Likes
#265
  1. The alternative to Segwit was to increase block size
  2. Segwit was originally proposed to solve the transaction malleability problem by moving signature information away from the data used to generate the transaction ID hash. This was feasible because the signature is really only needed at the point the transaction is being verified to be added to the blockchain and removing it reduces the transaction size by 60%…resulting in more smaller transactions per block :grinning:
  3. By preventing someone tampering with scripts and changing transaction ID’s Bitcoin was able to become a stable base-layer for smart contracts and second layer solutions such as Lightning.
  4. Segwit was not mandatory but adoption has grown since activation in Aug 2017.
1 Like
#266

  1. Proposed alternative was to increase a block size.

  2. It solved the transaction malleability issue.

  3. Segwit made second layer solution and lightning network possible.

  4. No, they are compatible with the old protocol

1 Like
#267

  1. The proposed alternative to SegWit was to simply increase the block size limit to 2mB.

  2. SegWit increased scalability, but it also increased solved the malleability issue which made room for new second layer technologies to be implemented; technologies like Lightning Network.

  3. SegWit and Lightning are connected through the malleability issue. Before Segwit it was easy to change parts of a transaction which was a security problem. With that problem solved, Lightning Network was able to more securely set-up state channels.

  4. Since SegWit was a soft fork, it is not mandatory for all participants of the network to upgrade. However, if they want to take advantage of the benefits that SegWit provides, then they will need to update.

2 Likes
#268
  1. block size increase
  2. Transaction ID malleability which in turn allows easier deployment of lightning network.
  3. Segwit helped make Lightning network possible.
  4. No it was a soft fork. Though considering they read segwit transactions as claimable by anyone.
1 Like
#269

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Initially Segwit was intended to fix transaction malleability which meant do deal with manipulating certain features in the signiture causing the TX hash to change detached from TX data.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Being a second layer protocol, Lightening network is a feature that relies on unconfirmed transactions thus open for the discussed malleabilty therefore risky. Segwit solves this issue.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    As I see it segwit, on one hand, did not change the 1MB consensus rule it came as a solution to condense increasing volume of tx(even though considered temporary). On the other hand I dont see any way around it being integrated espcially as BTC gains more popularity so I consider it a soft coercion,
    Question-Is this condensed pull of TX is considered as change of rules or moving the signature? tnx

1 Like
#270

To update the block sizes to 2mB. Which would only be a temporary solution as well.
2.
It solved the problem of Tx malleability, which means that someone was able to change tx hash after it has been sent.
3.
With bitcoin, the Segwit update made it possible, that a second layer could be built in bitcoin, so thanks to that, Lightning network can exist.
4.
They are not forced, but it is more effective with mass adoption.
Which by the way at the time of the article was 15%, nowadays touching 50%

1 Like
#271

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the block size limit, which would have resulted in a hard fork.

  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue, where anyone could change small details that modified the transaction ID but not the content. Removing the signature information from the block and putting it outside the block made it so the signatures could be changed without affecting the transaction ID.

  3. Fixing the transaction malleability problem makes it so any feature that relies on unconfirmed transactions is less risky and easier to design. This makes the lightning network easier to build.

  4. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit, but as more wallets upgrade, the percentage of transactions using Segwit will increase, and fees will decrease as the number of transactions in a block increases.

1 Like
#272

1.) What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative was to increase the blocksize to 2MB
2.) What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Opportunities for second layer solutions. No Hard Fork. Fixed the Transaction Malleability Issues
3.) How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The Lightning Network will take smaller and frequent transactions off Chain as well to boost Bitcoins
transaction capacity.
4.) Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No they are not but are working on it. There is a list by Bitcoin Core that has a current list of
progress

1 Like
#273
  1. Bigger block sizes .
  2. Segwit stopped a hard fork as well as scaling issues .
  3. Sewit supports and is compatible with second layer solutions which can enhance bitcoins potential for adoption .
  4. No , there are not forced as it is a soft fork and are in the realms of old method .
#274

  1. Increase of block size. This lead to a hard fork which created Bitcoin Cash

  2. It solved the problem of transaction malleability by removing the signature from the transaction. This made the transaction smaller which increased the amount of transactions in a block without increasing the size of the block. The signatures could then be verified separately without changing the hash of the transaction.

  3. Lightning network is a second layer protocol which boosts bitcoin’s transactional capacity

  4. No because it is a soft fork and still compatible with the old protocol (ie: still has a 1MB block limit)

1 Like
#275
  1. They wanted to resize the block.
  2. Malleability of transaction id by changing the signatures of the sender/reciever.
  3. Segwit is the lightening network.
  4. no but they better if they want better service overall.
#276

  1. Increasing the block size.

  2. Segwit solved the malleability issue by storing the signature information outside of the base transaction block, it also facilitates the lightening network and second layer solutions.

  3. The Segwit made any feature that relies on unconfirmed transations less risky and easier to design.

  4. No, it is still compatible with the previous protocol.

1 Like
#277

  1. An alternative proposal to Segwit was to simply increase the block size limit to 2mB.

  2. Segwit solved the malleability issue by removing the signature from the TX ID

  3. By solving the malleability issue, SegWit made it possible for second layer protocols, dealing with unverified transactions less risky, allowing Lightning network to become a viable second-layer protocol.

  4. No-one is forced to used SegWit, so adoption has been slow.

1 Like
#278
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? The proposed alternative to Segwit, which was taken by bitcoin cash was to simply double the size of the block, a poor choice because it is a temporary fix, it would require more horsepower and better internet to implement which would limit the number of miners and lead to a more centralized app. Also, the latency would increase with larger blocks, leading to higher fees, slower post-times and more stale blocks (which also slows down the confirmation time).
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? It solved tx malleability by off-loading the signatures into a separate file, which stopped the bug that allowed a recipient to change the signature part of the hash without changing the transactions and claiming that they never received the first tx and demanding a second.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? Lightning network is not viable with the TX Malleability bug, so Lightning was made viable with Segwit.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No.
1 Like
#279

Increasing the block size.

The security issue of maliability.

Segwit enabled the lightning network.

No because it was a soft fork.

1 Like
#280

I’m sorry but I don’t understand your question.

#281

Segwit is not the same as the lighting network.
But because segwit solved the transaction malleability issue, it is safer to work with unconfirmed transactions wich enables the lightning network to work on bitcoin.