Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#3274
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was raising the block size limit (this is what Bitcoin Cash implemented).
  2. Besides the scaling issue Segwit also solved the tx malleability issue (the ability to alter the signature which would change the hash).
    3.The changes made in Segwit made the development of second layer protocols safer and easier to design.
    4.No, but as more of the network adopts a change there is incentive to get on board with it because that’s where the majority of users will land.
1 Like
#3275
  1. BCH, bitcoin cash, with increased block size instead of segwit removing the signature from the txid
  2. Tx malleabillity
  3. 2nd layer solutions
  4. Segwit is still compatible with the “old protocol” so no, they are not forced to use segwit
1 Like
#3276

  1. Increase the block size limit.

  2. SegWit fixed the transaction malleability.

  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocol known as lightning network - which will further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity.

  4. No, older protocols are still compatible.

1 Like
#3277

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the block size limit.

  2. Segwit solved two problems - (1) the scaling issue, but also (2) the transaction malleability issue.

  3. The lightening network processes unconfirmed transactions - small frequent transactions that are processed before being confirmed in the blockchain. Segwit made it much safer for the lightening network to process because it solved the risk of transaction malleability (the risk that a bad player might change a transaction ID through changing an input signature in the transaction - leading to fraudulent and/or duplicate payments).

  4. People, wallets, etc are not forced to use segwit. Segwit did not create a hard fork, and the implementation of segwit is compatible with existing bitcoin services. So a wallet would not have to upgrade to implement segwit, and continue to implement bitcoin as per the protocol pre-segwit. However presumably anyone who did not implement segwit may be hit by increased block propogation times, increased transaction fees, and still risk transaction malleability.

1 Like
#3278

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    To change the block size limit to 2MB instead of 1MB.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It solved a security issue of transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    The lightning network is a second layer protocol. Second layer protocols got more of a boost from this update to help bitcoin’s scope and potential. Both Lightning and SegWit boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent. Lightning does it by taking “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. If people don’t agree with segwith they can use the Bitcoin Cash chain which instead grew the block size limit to 2MB instead of adopting SegWit.

2 Likes
#3279
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  • Increased block space
  1. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  • Segwit (Segregated Witness) solved the issue of transaction malleability which prevented anyone from modifying a tx ID and Hash (but not the content) which prevented adding smart contract capability.
  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  • Segwit enables layer 2 solutions such as the Lightning network.
  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  • No as Segwit is compatible with legacy wallets. They can also opt to use hard forks such as Bitcoin Cash.
1 Like
#3280

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Tx malleability making it possible to change small details in the tx block, like the transaction IDs

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols which essentially creates more security.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    SegWit comes from a soft fork and not everyone has to update it.

1 Like
#3281

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the blocksize - which is what Bitcoin Cash did, hard forking from the Bitcoin blockchain by doing so.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit solved a bug called transaction malleability. Minute changes to the transaction input signature would result in the block hash changing, without changing the contents of the transaction itself. The malleable part of the block was the signatures. Segwit solves the problem by separating the signatures from the rest of the block.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Transaction malleability was not a critical vulnerability for the layer 1 Bitcoin blockchain, but it would be for layer 2 solutions such as the lightning network. Therefore, Segwit is crucial for the development of L2s.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Technically not, as the blocksize is not increased, making the update a softfork. As such, nodes which have not updated, will still accept blocks produced under Segwit. For the same reason however, one might argue that in practice they are indeed being forced to accept Segwit.

1 Like
#3282
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

1.Increasing the block size.

2.Besides the scaling issue, also the TX malleability issue was solved.

3.Second layer possibilities possible – like the lightning network.

4.No. Soft fork.

1 Like
#3283

  1. The alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size limit from 1MB.

  2. Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability.

  3. Segwit made second layer protocols possible by making unconfirmed TX’s less risky.

  4. No one is forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork.

1 Like
#3284
  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was larger Block size!
  2. Segwith solved the problem with Block size by removing the need for ID signature wich is very large and this lead also to solving the problem with Block mallaibuility(security issue). So Block Mallaibuility and Block Size problem solved at the same time using Segwit.
  3. By removing the need of TX ID and increasing sequrity Segwith made using Lightning network possible wich further boost BTC transaction capacity.
  4. Other wallets are not forced to use Segwit. Segwit is a soft fork (down sizing) solution wich allows to run the 2 Block sizes. The new smaller size and the old larger size. More users/wallets are accepting/upgrading to Segwit protocol.
1 Like
#3285

  1. increase the block size to 2MB

  2. the problem with TX malleability

  3. Segwit supports the lightning network

  4. It was a softfork, the old Signatures(Adresses) ans Transactions can still be used.

1 Like
#3286

1A block size increase
2segwit solves transaction id mobility with in return allows easier deployments of lightnning network, plus speeds up transaction time. allows more transactions to take place
3segwit supports the second layer solution which is the lightening network.
4no it is a soft fork, but wallets are adding segwit

1 Like
#3287
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  1. a bigger block
  2. it allows blocks to carry more tx
  3. 2nd layer is now possible
  4. no
1 Like
#3288
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

One proposed alternative to Segwit was a fork, Bitcoin Cash, which implements a larger block size limit.

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

It solved transaction malleability, removing signatures from transactions. Changing signatures no longer can affect transaction IDs.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Through Segwit, the lightning network helps boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity through taking small, frequently occurring transactions off-chain.

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

Yes because it is a soft fork.

1 Like
#3289

You can still make old style transactions on Bitcoin, so I would say no. :slight_smile:

#3290

  1. Rather than adopting SegWit as the solution to the full block problem, a larger block size was also proposed, which resulted in a hard fork of the Bitcoin chain to Bitcoin Cash.

  2. The SegWit upgrade also fixed the transaction malleability issue, whereby signatures could be modified and result in a change in the transaction hash. This fix increases security.

  3. The SegWit upgrade also allowed more work to be done on the Lightning Network (Layer 2 scaling) because unconfirmed transactions are now less risky to design features for.

  4. The community does not have to adopt the SegWit upgrade since it is technically a soft fork. However, it probably feels like “force.” If you run an old node, it is less secure, there can be confusion about what the scripts mean, and it appears that you can’t use it for mining new blocks and receiving rewards because if previous valid blocks are made invalid (rule set contraction) by the upgrade, then old nodes will still try to propagate those newly invalidated blocks and eventually lose out in the accidental fork wars. If you have a reason to run a full node other than mining, you could do it with the old-style nodes, but it seems like the old way will eventually become obsolete even though it’s technically a choice.

1 Like
#3291

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

  • To increase the blocksize. A hard fork over to “Bitcoin Cash”.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

  • Malleability - any features based on unconfirmed tx(s) are easier to design, better security.

  • Enabler of 2nd level protocols - lightning - boost the network speed by taking small tx(s) off chain.

  • Development - mast (smart contracts) - schnorr signature mash up (fee reduction, node storage).

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

  • Segwit enabled the change.

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

  • No, the change is backwardly compatible. It’s in their interest through. Overtime it’s expected that 100% cutover to Segwit, giving better service with reduced fees, better network performance and increased security.
2 Likes
#3292
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Resistance to SegWit was one of the factors behind the development of bitcoin cash, a fork of the bitcoin network which chose to implement a larger block size limit rather than rely on a new transaction structure.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information (otherwise known as the “witness” information) and storing it outside the base transaction block. With that, signatures and scripts can be changed without affecting the transaction id. The TX is smaller and you can fit more in a block. SegWit does not increase the block size limit, but it does enable a greater number of transactions within the 1MB blocks. It also supports the development of second layer protocols
  3. How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit as an upgrade solution enables layer 2 solutions therefore, it enables Lightning network to function.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, people can use other services that do not support the soft fork of the Segwit, better said, they can fork.
2 Likes
#3293
  1. To increase the blocksize
  2. By removing the signature information, it also solved the transaction malleability.
  3. Without Segwit the lightning network wouldn´t be possible.
  4. No, wallets and other service can still use the old protocol.
1 Like