Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#3113

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

The alternative was to incerease block size to 2MB, thus allowing storage of more TXs.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It also solved the possibility of modifying the has of the transaction. ( transaction malleability.)

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Lightning is a second layer protocol, and Segwit supports it.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No they are not forced to use it, thus the implementation is quite slow.

1 Like
#3114

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The proposed alternative to Segwit was the the increase of the block size for from 1MB to 2MB

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability by making the network more secure.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit and the lightning network are connected as they both lighten the block size boosting bitcoin’s transaction capacity and segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    In short No, people, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit as they can still use the old protocol in which case we have a softfork and core transactions can still be validated.

1 Like
#3115

  1. Hard fork to increase block space up to 2mB per block

  2. Also solved transaction malleability - preventing digital signatures being changed on transactions after being sent. Stores the transaction signatures externally to free up block space - signatures and scripts can be changed without affecting the transaction ID.

  3. SegWit supports the development of layer 2 protocols, and with the malleability fix this meant that features which relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. Facilitating the Lightening Network.

  4. No, as Segwit was a soft fork, old transactions are still accepted on the blockchain

1 Like
#3116
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    An increase to the block size limit
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction malleability
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    By fixing the transaction malleability, 2nd layer platforms like Lightining Network are able to perform small transactions off chain.
  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No
1 Like
#3117
  1. To increase the size of the blocks.
  2. It also solved the issue of transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
  4. No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft fork).
1 Like
#3118
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the data structure to 2mB creating a fork in the network.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    SegWit’s first intention was to fix transaction malleability, which made it to where anyone could change small details that modified the transaction id.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network and would’t be possible without it’s soloutions to malleability.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No they are not but most adopt support and use is growing.
1 Like
#3119

  1. Increase the blocksize.

  2. It solved the transaction malleability issue.

  3. Segwit supports development of second layer protocols, I.e. lightning network.

  4. They are slowly migrating over to Segwit. They aren’t forced to, as Segwit is a soft fork, however, they wouldn’t be able to understand the Segwit transactions.

1 Like
#3120

The alternative was to increase the block size limit to allow more tx per block. Some of the community believed it was a good idea which lead to a hard fork and Bitcoin Cash was created.

It also fixed the issue of transaction malleability which allowed people to exploit the signature within the transaction which alters the hash and removes the transaction from the blockchain while still receiving the transaction.
This issue being fixed allows for more second layer protocols to be developed and features to be introduced such as lightning network, smart contracts and an anonymous top layer.

SegWit is connected to lightning network because it allows transactions to be verified from a different node at a later time instead of all at the time of the block being confirmed. The signature is separate to the block now so the transactions can go through without necessarily being verified by signature.

People are not forced to use SegWit but there are many benefits to doing so, such that wallets and services are likely to upgrade. It was a soft fork.

1 Like
#3121

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Doubling the block size to 2Mb

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
TX malleability

How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected
It allows for second layer protocols such as Lightning and by fixing the malleability issue, any other second layer protocols which rely on unconfirmed transactions become less risky.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, although adoption has come along way, with Segwit now the main protocol at around 50% adoption and processing over a million Tx per day.

Source:http://charts.woobull.com/bitcoin-segwit-adoption/

1 Like
#3122

Wasnt a soft fork more forceful than a hard?

#3123

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Hardfork to increase the storage capacity.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Transaction malleability.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Lightning network is a second layer protocol that will help bitcoin sending small transactions off-chain until they are needed.

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

No.

1 Like
#3124

  1. By increasing the block size.

  2. Will also fix TX malleability, a longstanding issue on the network whereby when TXs are signed, the signature does not cover all the data in the TX.

  3. Segwit takes the signature out of TX and puts the data into a Merkle tree int the Coinbase component of TX, or the input of a generated TX.

  4. Nop, It can be introduced to the network as a soft fork, meaning that it would avoid forcing all those running the BTC software to upgrade their clients in near-unison, thereby reducing the risk an upgrade splits the BTC Blockchain.

1 Like
#3125

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increased block size

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It fixed the Tx malleability issues

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
By addressing the malleability issues, Segwit opened the possibiility to second layer protocols, such as the lightning network

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it is compatible with the previous protocol (soft fork)

1 Like
#3126

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    An increase to the blocksize to 2mb. But that limit would be hit eventually then what do you do next?

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Performance improvements because more transactions could be fit on a block (i.e because they were not bloated with transaction signatures). Segwit also paved the way for second-layer protocols and smart-contracts.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Lightning is a second-layer protocol that takes small Txs (micropayments) off-chain and delays the settling of transactions until the users are ready. Lightning relied upon Unconfirmed transactions which were more risky due to the Tx malleability issue.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No, it was a soft fork - but the adoption will help increase performance and reduce bitcoins fees.

1 Like
#3127

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the size of the 1MB limit on the blocks.

  2. Segwit solved transaction malleability by removing the signature because now if someone were to change the signature, the hash and transaction ID will no longer be affected.

  3. Segwit and Lightning network are connected by both having a two layer solution on top of Bitcoin.

  4. People are not forced to use Segwit and some wallets have not even implemented Segwit yet. It is optional which makes it a soft fork.

1 Like
#3128

  1. The alternatives proposed solution is to increase the block size to 2MB.

  2. It solved the issue of transaction malleability.

  3. Seqwit allowed implementing a second layer like the Lightning network.

  4. No, there was a split in the community, and it caused a Hardfork, a group of people implemented the increase of block size from 1MB to 2 MB, and the other part implemented Segwit.
    Segwit was compatible with a previous protocol, so wallets and other services are gradually supporting Segwit.

1 Like
#3129
  1. Alternative was increasing the block size itself.
  2. It solved the problem of malleability as it took the signature (witness data) out of the transaction.
  3. By creating a second layer structure, segwit was building the possible road for the lighning newtork.
  4. Actually not really forced. But as it is a soft fork as soon as the majority uses segwit they will automatically confirm the segwit blockchain. Problem with this is that nodeswho not updated might validate information on a different base.
1 Like
#3130

From the user perspective one can still make old style transactions on Bitcoin and doesn’t need to use Segwit. :slight_smile:

#3131
  1. A hard fork as is Bitcoin Cash to change the block size
  2. It solves the transation mallebility and that lowers fees
  3. More complex smart contracts option
  4. No, as it is a soft fork. More wallets are adding Segwit support though.
1 Like
#3132
  1. Increasing the block size as done in BTC Cash
  2. Segwit fixed the malleability issue with taking tx signatures out of the tx data structure
  3. Segwit solved the malleability problem, which made the development of layer protocols such as Lightning easier as features that are based on unconfirmed tx are less risky now
  4. no as it was a soft fork
1 Like