Segwit Reading Assignment

[L0rdStitch]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

• Increasing block size which leads to hard fork.

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

• Transaction malleability.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as Lightning Network. Lightning Network boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.

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

• No

[asvpxroland]

1. Increase the block size capacity.

2. It fixed a code in bitcoin called “transaction malleability” - this allowed anyone to modify the transaction I.D. but not the contents of a block.

3. SegWit supports the development of second-layer protocols.

4. No, wallets are still able to use the old protocol because it is a soft fork.

[djsamhouse]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   increasing the block size.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? tx id malleability.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? segwit makes the lighting network possible.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? no, since it was a soft fork.

[Henke]

1. To increase the block size.
2. It solved the problem of transaction malleability, ie changing the txid, fraud.
3. Through a two layer solution, a second protocol. Lightning sits on top so to speak.
4. No they are not.

[Dimski45]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

To increase the block size.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

It solved the issue of malleability so changing signatures on transactions would not change the tx

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Lightning network in built on segwit and they work in tandum.

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

no

[Alexandros_Ntolgkov]

1. A proposed alternative that was implemented as a hard fork was Bitcoin cash which basically increased the size of the block size.

2. Besides the scaling issue it solved the transaction malleability issue which was basically a person being able to change the ID of the transaction instead of the transaction itself after the transaction was completed. This transaction

3. Just like Segwit takes out the signature of the transaction and places it besides it, in the same way the lightning network wants to take smaller transcations off-chain to improve scalability of the network by making more space for new transactions.

4. If they want to support the original bitcoin and not any of its forks, then yes they are forced to use segwit to adher to the network rules of the bitcoin blockchain

[maro]

1. To change the size of the bitcoin, by making it more bigger.

2. The transaction malleability. By removing the signature information.

3. Segwit has allow the creation of LN by resolving the transaction malleability.

4. not at all. There are fork who don’t use it.

[Andres83]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   The other proposal was to change the size of the blocks for bigger Mb capacity.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   It also solved the bug of malleability, by removing the signature to a independent file, the transaction hash doesnt change
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Because now this allows second layer solutions based on unconfirmed transactions
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No

[Ren]

1. The alternative was to increase the block size

2. Solved the issue of transaction malleability

3. Segwit made second layer solution possible which is the lightning network

4. No it was a soft fork update

[Jekaterina]

Alternative solution to “full block problem” was the increasing the block size.
Segwit also removed signature aspect from the transaction solving transaction malleability problem and making layer 2 solutions (such as lightning network) possible.
People are not forced to use segwit. But the more users adopt segwit, the faster transactions become.

[kdz]

1. The alternative to Segwit was to simply increase the block size.
2. Yes, it solved the Maleability issue.
3. Segwit allows the development layer 2 protocols such as lightning network which increases transaction capacity by allowing small, frequent transactions to be moved offchain.
4. No, people can use Bitcoin Cash as an alternative.

[Amathews06]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Bitcoin cash by increasing the block size from 1 MB to 2 MB

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

Improve transaction malleability. People could change small details of transactions ie transaction ID. this is now not possible as it sits outside the transaction.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

As transaction can’t be altered it improves the security of the network. this allows lightning to take place because it works in a way of handling bitcoin transactions without needing to verify them on the block-chain.

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

No not all forced to use it. it is optional but most will adopt the segwit protoclos

[IDN001]

1. Increasing the block size.
2. It fixed the malleability of transactions issue. By this way, it has openned up functionability
3. Since witness is stored in another place, it is possible to take frequent and small transactions off-chain and then let them settle on-chain. Lİghtning protocol is the second layer on Bitcoin.
   4)No, they are not.

[andrequintino]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

To increase the block size for 2mB instead of 1mB.

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

The segwit also solve the problem of the bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability. This flaw allowed anyone to change small details that modified the transaction id (and the subsequent hash) but not the content.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Because of SegWit fixed the problem of transaction malleability by removing the signature information (otherwise known as the “witness” information) and storing it outside the base transaction block, this allow the development of more complex features such as second-layer protocols like Lightning network and smart contracts that was not possible before.

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

No, they can still not use the Segwit but all the bitcoin network benefits if everyone uses the Segwit. Transactions faster, fees lower and security increased.

[CryptoXyz]

1. The proposed alternative was to Increase Block Size - which is one of the reasons why BitcoinCash is created

2. Segwit solve the TX malleability issue which changes the TX ID (Hash) when a change in the signature is made after the TX. This change increased the security in the BTC network

3. Segwit - or the removal of the witness ID in the TX block increased security and supported the addition of second layer protocols like Lightning Network. Segwit made it less risky by fixing the TX malleability issue

4.No one is forced to use SegWit because it was a softfork, but those that see its value and contribution pursued it.

[Skatecat]

1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size to 2mB.
2. Segwit also solved the problem of transaction malleability by removing the signature ID’s to another location outside the block.
3. Segwit and Lightning networks are connected through 2nd layer protocols which Segwit supports.
4. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit because they can also use Bitcoin Cash which has a larger block limit. This was a hard fork in the blockchain.

[R_G]

1. To increase block size.

2. It also solved the malleability issue and enable the Lightning network implementation.

3.Lightning network is a second layer solution made possible with the Segwit implementation.

4. No, the old protocol is still compatible.

[Rascus]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Increase block size to 2Mb.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Transaction maleability. By taking the transaction signature out of the block and placing it into another structure, meant that the transaction data couldn’t be changed by a malicious party by changing the tranaction signature.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit is a soft fork of the bitcoin network. Bitcoin retained a block size of 1 MB and removed the signatures from the block, whereas the Lightening network increased block size to 2MB.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No. However, adoption is incentavised by faster transaction speeds and lower fees.

[Mr.Flo]

1.Increase the block size from 1 MB to 2 MB, or more(however only temporary solution
because once new block size limit is reached,we have to face same problem).

2 SegWit solves the transaction malleability bug, lowers fees and supports 2nd-layer protocols and smart contracts.

3.SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as Lightning network.

4.People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit because it is still compatible with old protocol.

[CryptoRavioli]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Increasing the block size to fit more transactions per block.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Transaction malleability, by removing the signature data from the block.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   By solving the malleability problem, Segwit made layer 2 designs like lightning network less risky.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   It is not mandatory to use Segwit, but is beneficial and incentivized.