Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#3153
  1. Increasing block size limit
  2. Tx malleability issue. Took signature out of the block
  3. Segwit boosts Lightning network capabilities and made it safer for lightning netwrok
  4. No.
1 Like
#3154
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase in block size.
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Solve the issue of Transaction Malleability. signatures and scripts can be changed without affecting the TXID.
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transaction less risky and easier to desing. Lightning is a layer over Segwit.
  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, any old transaction can be used as well(SoftFork)
1 Like
#3155

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

  • The proposed alternative was to make the block size bigger

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

  • It solved a tricky malleability issue

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

  • Segwit is what makes the Lightning Network possible by removing the signatures before hashing the block, therefore there are “segregated” Lightning nodes which only perform one simple task and that is to verify the signatures are good before the signatures are stripped from the transactions and the transactions are crammed into the block.

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

  • Segwit is a soft fork so the nodes are not forced to upgrade.
1 Like
#3156

  1. It was proposed that the block size should be increased.

  2. It also solved the security issue of transaction malleability by separating the signatures from the transactions.

  3. Segwit made it possible for the Lightning network to be used as a second layer scaling solution for bitcoin, as the Lightning network relies on the security of unconfirmed transactions.

  4. No, they are not forced to implement Segwit protocol.

1 Like
#3157

One proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the block size.

Segwit solved Bitcoin block scaling, as well as transaction malleability.

Segwit allows for faster transaction confirmations, opening the door to lightning network capabilities.

Segwit is part of the Bitcoin blockchain protocol. If people don’t like it, they can use Bitcoin cash , or another hard fork blockchain.

1 Like
#3158
  1. To increase the block size
  2. Transaction (signature) malleability.
  3. Lightning was able to be developed, because it used SegWit’s malleability fix as a base to build upon, with transactions becoming less risky and easier to design.
  4. Yes and no, it was a soft fork, so nodes could remain with the previous version of the blockchain software, but at the same time it forced all the nodes to be a part of the network where SegWit was implemented.
2 Likes
#3159

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

    The alternative would be to increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB.

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

    It also solved the malleability problem, that allowed for small changes in the signatures without changing the transaction ID. SegWit removes the signatures from the transaction and stores them outside the base transaction block.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

  • SegWit supports second layer protocols and made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
  • Lightning network as a second layer protocol that takes frequent small transactions off chain, and settles them only when users are ready, will take full advantage of this feature.

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

    No. One example is Bitcoin Cash that was created as an alternative protocol, by increasing the block size from 1MB to 2MB.

1 Like
#3160
  1. Increasing the block size was proposed as an alternative to segwit, but this would create a hard fork.
  2. The transaction malleability problem, which was the ability to edit the witness info in the signature, it also lowered TX costs.
  3. Segwit was first enabled on the lightning network a L2 protocol. It helps to boost bitcoins transaction capability by taking small transactions off chain.
  4. Segwit was a soft fork, so non-adapters could still use it.
1 Like
#3161
  1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size
  2. Segwit also solved the potential vulnerability of transaction malleability within the Bitcoin blockchain
  3. Segwit and the lightning network are similarly connected because they are working in a parallel chain to the main blockchain, on a different layer (L2)
  4. No, Segwit was not a hard fork so the update was backwards compatible.
1 Like
#3162
  1. A hard fork like Bitcoin cash to increase block size from 1 mB.
  2. It also solved the malleability issue.
  3. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. This supported the development of the lightning network…
  4. No, Segwit is a softfork.
1 Like
#3163

1.Other proposed alternative was to increase the Block size.
2. Segwit also solved the security problem.
3.Segwit supports the development of a second layer protocols on top of a Bitcoin, such as Lightning network.
4. Nodes are not forced to use Segwit update.

1 Like
#3164
  1. Increasing the block size from 1 mB to 2 mB.
  2. Transaction Malleability
  3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
  4. No its still compatible with old protocol Soft Fork
1 Like
#3165

1: Increasing block size capacity.
2: A main improvement Segwit makes is transaction malleability. By taking out transaction signatures from the blocks, changing these signatures no longer affects the hash fingerprint of the transaction/block.
3: By implementing Segwit, the lightning network was able to be implemented because the malleability problem was fixed.
4: No, main reason being it was a soft-fork and did not expand the rule set for the bitcoin network.

1 Like
#3166

Users can also still make old style txs on Bitcoin as well. :slight_smile:

#3167
  1. To increase the size to 2mB
  2. It removed the possibility for tx malleability bc the tx sign is kept separated from the tx data.
  3. Segwit supports second layer protocols such as the lightning network, who helps reduce the block sieze on the blockchain.
  4. No, its a soft fork
1 Like
#3168

1 What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A hard fork increasing the block size above 1MB.

2 What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction malleability by securing the transaction id.

3 How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit upgrade enabled layer 2 solutions like Lightning network being created.

4 Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No they are not.

1 Like
#3169

Q1. What was a proposed alternative to segwit?
A1. Up the block size from 1MB to 2MB blocks.

Q2. What did segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
A2. Malleability to the signatures of TX in the blocks in return changes TXID.

Q3. How is segwit and the lightning network connected?
A3. Segwit allows 2nd layer network work without the need of signatures, allowing the lighting network protocol work increasing scaleable transaction on the bitcoin core network.

Q4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use segwit?
A4. No, because is was a softfork, but if they want to use segwit they need to upgrade.

1 Like
#3170

  1. The proposed alternative to segwit was still increase block size, this eventually gave rise to bitcoin cash.

  2. Segwit also solves transactio malleability

  3. Segwit allows the support of secondary layer protocols such aas the lightening network.

  4. No. As its a soft fork but most wallets will support segwit.

1 Like
#3171
  1. A proposed alternative was simply to increase the block size. This would have been only a temporary solution.
  2. Segwit also solved the problem of transaction malleability, which made possible an exploit involving changing the signature on the transaction. By segregating the signatures, this becomes no longer a risk.
  3. Segwit also supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
  4. No. Segwit was a soft fork, meaning that it is compatible with the earlier version of the protocol.
1 Like
#3172
  1. Bitcoin cash implemented increase of the block size limit.
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. Segwit supports layer 2 protocols like lighting network, which means some smaller transactions can be settled/taken off chain and if it is ready it will then be sent to the blockchain.
  4. No because it is a softfork it will simply be adopted if they remain on the chain.
1 Like