- a proposed alternative to segwit was an increase in the block size.
- segwit solved transaction malleability.
- Segwit supports second layer development which is how the lightning network was created.
- Segwit is part of the Bitcoin protocol and no one is forced to transact through the the bitcoin network. Bitcoin cash is a fork of bitcoin that doesn’t use segwit.
1 Like
- To increase the block size from 1mb to 2mb
- It solved the transaction malleability issue.
- SegWit allowed for layer 2 solutions like lightning network to be built on top of bitcoin network.
- No.
2 Likes
- block size increase
- tx ID malleability which allows easier deployment of lighting network.
- segwit helped make lightning network possible (second layer solution)
- Soft fork. not all use it more are adding segwit support.
2 Likes
- The alternative was to increase the blocksize above 1MB per transaction.
- Segwit fixed a gap in the BitCoin code that allowed the people to modify the transaction id’s without changing the signatures in the block, therefore changing the block id.
- The lighting network is a second layer protocol that allows for other features, like smart contracts, to be built on BitCoin.
- You are not forced to use Segwit, but if the don’t convert there will not see all transactions as valid on the blockchain.
2 Likes
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative to Segwit (Segregated Witness) was to increase the block size which led to a hardfork and brought about bitcoin cash.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
More than just the scaling issue, Segwit was able to solve the bug on the bitcoin code called Transaction Malleability.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit and the lightning network are connected by the supported development of second layer protocols.
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?
People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit (bitcoin cash being the example as a softfork) but it is recommended as an uptick in usage and additional functionality. More wallets embracing the upgrade means the fees should drop as blocks contain a greater number of transactions.
The percentage of transactions that use the Segwit structure will increase as well.
2 Likes
- Increased block size (hard fork BCH)
- Transaction malleability
- It simplifies the development of second layer technology such as lightening. This should increase adoption and allow for new features.
- No, it’s a soft fork
1 Like
-
Increasing block size.
-
Solved the problem of transaction malleability.
-
Segwit enables the use of layer 2 solutions like Lightning network.
-
No, softfork update.
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
To increase the block size. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit solved transaction malleability by removing the signature information from a transaction and storing it outside the base transaction block. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No one has been forced as it’s a soft fork.
1 Like
-
Increasing the block size (e.g. 2MB)
-
Transaction malleability where changing a transaction’s signature would allow you to change the whole transaction hash.
-
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network. Small and frequent transactions would be taken off the chain and only settled on-chain.
-
No because this was a soft fork so the old rules are still valid.
1 Like
- Increase the Block size.
- The other thing solved was the Transaction Malleability issue.
- Fits on OSI Layer 2, so commonality with and birth of Lightning
- No, if act one of my first transactions would not go through because I was trying to.make a non-segwit buy on a seqwit exchange.
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
- to increase the block size to 2mb, but would have increase costs of mining and time of propagation across the network leading to more stale blocks and forks
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
- it solved the security risk of malleability (adjustung scriptsig)
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connectedsegwit enabled the ightning network which is a faster method of settlement in order to “further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.”
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
- no. Legacy addresses/ wallets still exist
2 Likes
1.) the alternative to segwit is a hard fork that allows the miners to operate at a larger block size limit. changing the size limit from 1 mB to 2 mB.
2.) segwit not only solved the scaling problem with reducing the size of transactions, putting more transactions in a block but also preventing malleability. which is poses a higher level of security and prevents people from scamming others.
3.) as the lightning network is a layer two protocol it can only work if there are no malleability with unconfirmed transactions. the unconfirmed blocks are taken off the chain and wait for someone to pick them up and process them.
4.) since it is a soft fork people wallets and others dont really have to implement it. however it is much better for the network in keeping down transaction times and fees as well as making it more attractive and scalable for mass adoption.
1 Like
- Changing the block size limit to 2MB from 1MB.
- It reduced the size of transactions by removing the signatures, “witness” data.
- Segwit enabled the lightning network which is a faster method for settlement to boost the transaction capacity by taking frequent miniture transactions off the chain.
- No, other wallets such as legacy still exist.
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
To increase block size. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It fixed the malleabillity issue that allowed the modification of signature data to generate new tx ID. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning network was enabled by SegWit -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it is a soft fork and is backwards compatible.
The reduced transaction fees will incentivize users to switch to Segwit.
1 Like
- increasing the blocks sizes
- transaction malleability and allowed second layer solution.
- by allowing second layer solution
- No as long as the update in >50%
1 Like
- Increasing the block size.
-It solved the Malleability issue by removing the signature from inside the block.
-Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols . - No, it;s still compatible with the old network.
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
-The alternative to segwit was to increase the block size to 2 mB. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
-Segwit was also able to solve the transaction malleability issue that would allow transaction IDs to be changed by the recipients signature which would lead to fraudulent double transactions because once the recipient added their signature the old version of the transaction ID no longer existed to be confirmed by the sender. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
-Segwit supports the use of Lightning network since it makes it easier to deal with unconfirmed transactions more safely, lightning network makes bitcoins transaction capacity quicker because it takes smaller transactions off the chain until the user is ready. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
-No, its a soft fork original version will still fall within rules
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increase storage from 1mb to 2 or 4 mb - What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
TX malleability is no longer available for edit signature of previous transaction - How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Second layer protocol - Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it’s a soft fork
P.s. im actually didn’t get what second layer protocol exactly means. Is it something that everybody created and agreed with it protocol?
1 Like
Hi @Truf3, https://www.bitrates.com/news/p/second-layer-protocols-how-do-they-enhance-blockchain-functionality from 2019 lays out explanations and examples of several second layer bitcoin protocols, which helped me sort it better myself.
Basically second layer protocols (lighting et al) can only exist because they are built on top of the first layer (bitcoin), which needs to function in predictable and secure ways to be a good foundation.
For an alt example of protocol layering, using gold, see https://timevalueofbtc.medium.com/the-bitcoin-second-layer-d503949d0a06
2 Likes
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A hardfork that would increase the block size to 2 mb.( Bitcoin Cash) - What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction malleability.( The ability to change a transaction signature after it has been broadcasted, resulting in a different TXID for the same transaction) - Segwit helped make Lightning network possible.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Well, from the Filip lesson, i’ve learned that SegWit is a soft fork and with a soft fork all the nodes will eventualy force join the majority so contrary to all the answers i saw here, i guess the answer to this question is YES. Probably im wrong but that that is what i’ve got from the lesson.
1 Like