- The first solution imagined was to increase the size of the blocks but it wasn’t a long term solution regarding the speed with which the block limit was reached among other reasons (centralization increase, delay of propagation through the network, potential hard forks)
- By decreasing the size of the transactions removing their signatures enabling more transactions to be stored in a block it automatically prevented transaction malleability where someone back then could be able to change the script in inputs’ signatures altering senders’ transaction ID.
- The Lightning network enables to build second-layer protocols on top of the blockchain.
- Segwit must be seen as an integration that solves scaling and security issues and that enables more sophisticated features such as smart contracts, transaction capacity boost and anonymous top-layer networks. It is not an obligation to use it however it can definitely improve adoption and can be very handy to solve complex matters.
2 Likes
- Increasing the blocksize.
- It solved the problem with transaction malleability by removing the signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block.
- Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols so it made the lightning network possible.
- It was a softfork so they are not forced.
1 Like
1 Increase blocksize
2 A bug called Tx maleability
3 Segwit allow for LN as increased security
4 Nope its a soft fork
1 Like
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing the block size.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
TxID malleability by removing the signature, or witness data, from the txn data
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit made it possible for layered solutions like lightning that rely on unconfirmed txns
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No
1 Like
-
The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB.
-
Segwit solved the issue of TX Malleability as well as the scaling issue.
-
Segwit and the lightning network are connected in that the lightning network depends on segwits improved security (From the TX Malleability fix) and enables 2nd layer functions.
-
People, wallets and other services aren’t forced to use Segwit as it is still compatible with the old protocol
1 Like
- Increasing of the blocksize, which would end up in a hard fork.
- The malleability issue.
- Lightning is a second layer protocol on top of Bitcoin protocol.
- No, it is backward compatible.
1 Like
Segwit was a soft fork, so wallets and users have a choice to use the normal legacy way or to update. It’s backwards compatible
It solved the mallebility issue. That transaction ID’s could be manipulated.
-
An increase in the block size (what we know today as bitcoin cash etc) was proposed alternatively to Segwit.
-
Segwit solve TX malleability in addition to scaling issue.
-
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
“The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.” -
The number of wallets that embracing the Segwit update increases so ultimately the usage of Segwit protocol increases, however as far as I know, in some wallets you do have the option to choose a TX method.
Moreover as Segwit protocol reduces the fee, it will be most likely more attractive for people to use it.
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A hard fork that would increase the block size. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Also transaction malleability where the scripsig could be altered and make it difficult to verify tx’s. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit enabled the Lightning network to be created as a 2nd layer protocol. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it is a soft fork. Community decides if they want to participate.
1 Like
-
The proposed alternative to Segwit was simply increasing the block size, AKA Bitcoin Cash.
-
Tx malleability problem by removing the signature from the Tx data structure.
-
Segwit is a soft fork that makes a layer 2 payments scaling solution like lightning network possible.
-
No, it’s a soft fork.
1 Like
- Increasing the block size
- Malleability
- It allowed second layer protocols like Lightning network to be build on top
- No they are not
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Alternatively to SegWit, some believe that raising the block size to 2MB is a better idea for this dilemma. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit also solved the issue of malleability in transactions because removing the signature information from the block means that any alteration of the signature or script will not change the transaction ID. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The Lightning Network is a second layer protocol; SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols for the network. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No one is forced to use SegWit; but as more wallets add the upgrade, the percentage of transactions that use that use the SegWit structure will increase.
1 Like
- To increase Block Size to 2mB
- Transaction Malleability by separating the required signature from the Block, thus enabling more hash power in the block.
- Segwit enabled a 2nd layer protocol called the Lightning network to be built on top of Bitcoin.
- People,wallets and other services are not forced so the adoption of Segwit it is voluntary.
1 Like
- 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?
- Increase the blocksize.
- Transaction malleability, along with supporting a second layer.
- SegWit made it possible to develop second layer protocols. Lightning network is a second layer protocol.
- It was a soft fork. Nobody was forced to update, however big part of the community updated.
1 Like
-
An alternative to segwit was the implementation of a bigger blocksize, which led to the hardfork bitcoin cash, which has done exactly that instead of segwit.
-
transaction malleability
-
segwit made it easier to support second layer protocols such as lightning network
-
they are not forced to use the segwit update as the blocklimit stayed the same. but they wont profit of any features implemented with segwit. transaction fees will be higher for transactions without segwit as they use more block-space.
1 Like
- Larger blocks
- Removed the signatures from the transaction to fix malleability bug.
- Lightning relies on the transaction ID to work, and this can be modified with the malleability bug.
- Segwit is totally optional, but desirable for several reasons.
1 Like
- To increase the block size limit
- Segwit solved the malleable bug that allowed transactions to be altered via the signature part of the transaction
- Lighting is a new protocol that was enabled after Segwit was deployed which speeds up the transaction confirmation times
- No - they can go along the other fork.
1 Like
1 - A proposed alternative to segwit was to increase the blocksize, this however compromised security and increased the chances of stale blocks. This alternate was still explored and is now Bitcoin Cash.
2 - Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability by removing the witness data from the transaction. This prevents the manipulation of the witness data used to produce a new Transation ID which can be abused.
3 - Lightning network is available only due to the stability of transaction ID brought on by segwit and allows more functionality to be built on top of the Bitcoin network.
4 - No one is forced to use Segwit, it is a soft fork and therefore only optional however its functionality is highly desirable.
1 Like
- Increase of the block from 1mb to 2mb.
- It solved the malleability issue as well.
- Segwit make it possible.
- No
1 Like