Segwit Reading Assignment

[r0bz078]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increased the block size to 2mB which will cause a hard fork.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   It solved transactions size issue by solving this problem will fix the issue with higher fees and stop the malleability issue by removing signatures in the transactions.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   By fixing transactions malleability issue the transactions size is smaller and so more transactions can fit into the block and it helps network to run smoothly and so it helps with the scaling issues.

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

[Xehlos]

1. Increasing the block size, such as 1mb to 2mb.

2. The transaction malleability issue was also fixed by the Segwit proposals and implementation.

3. The lightning network permits small and frequent transactions off chain and is only possible through the Segwit update.

4. They are not forced, since it is a soft fork update. However, they may eventually become a minority.

[Cryptoknightking]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Bigger block size was the alternative.

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

It solved the transaction Malleabilty also.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit made second layer possible for lighting network.

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

No they are not forced to use Segwit

[Alko89]

@Giorgioolivan

So it still just is a temporary solution, is it correct?

No because segwit enables second layer solutions to be developed.

[Alko89]

@Nettie

Does this slow down the smaller transactions?

Why would it slow them down?

@Nettie

wallets and other services are not required to use Segwit, however, I sense that it will be. Not sure on this one.

Segwit will probably never be mandatory and you will always be able to make old style txs.

[Giorgioolivan]

I guess I have to understand better what second layer solution is:)
Thanks Alko!

[Nettie]

If I understand correctly, the smaller more frequently occurring transactions are set aside, therefore it would take additional computing to bring them back in. In the future, when the number of transactions increases and the blocks are full, then there will be an additional batch of transactions to deal with. This is all new, my brain is just reacting:) Thank you!

[Nettie]

Is Segwit less safe?

[Alex2]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Bitcoin Cash was an alternative which increased the size of the block
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   It also solved the maleability issues becasue it stores the signature ourside of the block hence you could change info in the signature without affecting the transaction and subsequent hash
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit facilitates taking regular micropayments so off the blockachain and only settles them when the user are ready which si the ligthenign network as segwit allows second layer portocols
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   no they are not forced to use it. They will have to add Segwit support which is a project

[mervxxgotti]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? — Rasing block size
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? — Fixed Tx malleability problem and enabled lightning network development. Also lowered fees and Tx times.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? — Segwit supported development of second layer protocols like lightning network as the Tx Mal fix made features linked to unconfirmed Tx’s less risky and easier to design.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? — No. Hence, formation of BTC Cash which simply increase block size instead of moving to new Tx structure. Also, some wallets have not yet adopted this, but larger ones like Trezor and Ledge have. But this change is happening eventually. This was a SOFT FORK. But BTC Cash hard forked themselves anyway.

[FerfiC]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative was to just increase block size.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit solved the transaction size, but most important it increased the security of the transactions my solving the problem of transaction malleability, so now we no longer have the problem if anyone tries to change the signature (resulting in a different hash) because it is stored outside the transaction.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit now allows that we can have 2nd layer protocols, and there is where Lightning network enters. It’ll take smaller, frequent transaction offchain and then they will be added to the blockchain whenever they are requested. This particularity allows faster transactions, increasing Bitcoin’s capacities.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No-one is forced to use Segwit, but since it was a Soft Fork, all next produced blocks will still be valid under the new rules. Since wallets and other services were preforming the necessary updates, all people can still use it.

[Bear_Sanity]

1. Increasing block size from 1 mB to 2 mB.

2. It solved the problem of TX malleability. By removing the signature from the tx, changing the signature no longer changes the hash.

3. Segwit’s malleability fix made it so any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions was less risky and easier to design, and made it possible for 2nd later protocols like the lightning network possible.

4. No one is forced to adopt Segwit

[Alko89]

@Nettie

Is Segwit less safe?

Not really, from the cryptographic standpoint its the same and it solves the malleability issue so in this regard its more secure.

[Holt]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increase the Block size

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

Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue by removing the signature from the

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit allows second layer solutions by eliminating transaction malleability issues.

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

No, it is a soft fork, nodes that do not adopt are still part of the same network.

[Lauro_Cosby]

1. The 1st proposal was to increase the block size

2. Segwit solved the issue of transaction speed and tx malleability

3. Segwit makes the second layer of the lightning network possible.

4. No they are not forced due to the soft fork making it aplicable to the previous protocol.

[SmilingDog]

1. One proposed alternative to Segwit was
   the increase of the block size.
2. Other than the scaling issue, Segwit also
   solved the problem of transaction
   malleability.
3. When Segwit fixed the transaction
   malleability problem, it made any feature
   that relied on unconfirmed transactions
   less risky and easier to design. The
   lightning network is one such second-layer
   protocol.
4. No. Many miners do not like the lower
   fees resulting from Segwit which affect
   their profits, or having to support the
   Segwit sidechain, which provides no fee
   revenue at all, and not all wallets are
   capable.

[Semicryptpro]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

An impractical alternative was to inc from 1 to 2mb is size: that would have promoted accidental forks and stale blocks made it harder for Miners with inc in equip costs and more electricity

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

It also made it impossible to alter transactions as they are separated from the digital signatures.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit was instituted first to fix the transaction malleability issue. Then it separates the digital signature outside of the block. The Lightening Network then takes it from there to update all of the micro transactions in larger batches. With Segwit the transaction ID’s are protected from being altered which would cause chaos and make system unusable.

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

No. Miners don’t like the lower fees and not all wallets are Segwit compatible.

[crypto-nik]

1 - increasing the block size was another way of increasing tx capacity and it ended up with BCH
2 - beside scaling the bitcoin network, Segwit solved transaction malleability that were necesary for building on top of bitcoin.
3 - segwit solved the problem with ability to change the signature data slightly and changing the TID without changing the content and validity of the block, so there appeared an oppourtunity to build on top of bitcion.
4- because it was a soft fork, at the begining ther was no force but after majority of network updated, with not updating you are out of the game

[KungFuKAR3N]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

A proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the block size to 2MB. A hard fork example is bitcoin cash.

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

Segwit also solved transaction malleability, where a person can change small details to the transaction ID resulting in a change in the hash. By removing the “witness” information (also removed data size) from inside the block to outside the block this solved both the size problem, allowing more transactions in per block and the TX malleability bug.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit made it possible to develop second layer protocols, which includes the lighting network, by fixing the transaction malleability issue and making it less risky.

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

People, wallets and other serviced are not forced to use Segwit (soft fork), but using Segwit will result in the bitcoin fees dropping and a quicker transaction time, which is ideal.

[joycegp1]

1. Increase in block size.
2. Transaction malleability.
3. Segwit made possible the development of second layer protocols such as the Lightning network.
4. No, because it is a softfork. Many wallets have yet to add Segwit support.