The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size (that divided the main chain) but it doesn’t solve the malleability.
Segwit came up with unique idea that didn’t only solve the scaling issue but also solved the malleability problem.
Segwit made second layer solution possible on bitcoin network.
4, No they don’t have to force anybody its just a soft fork.
the proposed alternative to segwit was to increase the block size limit from 1mb to 2mb
Segwit was initially intended to fix transaction malleability by moving the signatures outside the block it reduces data in the block helping the scaling issue at the same time.
Segwit supports development of second layer protocols like lightning network which also boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity.
Segwit is optional not forced, it is a soft fork update and compatible with the old protocol.
The alternative would have been to just increase the allowed block size.
It also solved the problem with “transaction malleability” which means that the transaction id can change without the transaction’s content changing. This happens when the signature, stored in the transaction, is changed slightly thus creating a new transaction id all the while the content stays the same. This opens up the possibility of fraud where a sending party could be fooled to create a new transaction to the same receiver.
Segwit allowed so called second layer protocols to be built, such as the Lightning framework.
No one is forced to use segwit. Adoption to seqwit took some time.
Increasing the block size limit – this is what Bitcoin Cash did during its split.
Transaction malleability issues. Signatures can be changed without affecting the transaction ID now, decreasing transaction risks and allowing second-layer protocols and smart contracts to develop.
The lightning network is a second-layer protocol that can now run thanks to segwit updates.
No. It is a soft fork update.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Bitcoin Cash.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The transaction fees drop as there are more transactions and with the development of lightning network and similar second layer protocols, bitcoin’s scope and potential increased.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
It supports the development of lightning network.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No.
Increasing the block size was an alternative to Segwit
Transaction IDs could be changed without manipulating the transaction and the block.
SegWit can support the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network which can boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.
SegWit is becoming more common but it is still currently optional
Malleability could be done when the tx was still in the mempool, it couldn’t be changed once it was mined in a block. 
Increasing block size from 1mb - 2mb
the mallability
layer two solution
no
Segwit proposed alternative was to increase the block size.
Segwit solved the transaction malleability. It enable a greater number of transactions within the 1MB blocks, by removing the signatures and storing them outside the base transaction block.
Lightning network is a second layer protocol development that SegWit supports.
People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit, they can still use the previous protocol.
1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative was increasing the size of the block.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit solved possible misuse of changing signature in the transaction
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Because of removing signatures from a block, the block size is reduced without limiting a number of transactions or size of them in the block. transaction,
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, because signatures are not included in the block anymore, but otherwise the structure of the block stayed the same.
Block size increase from 1mB to 2mB.
Transaction ID malleability
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
No, Segwit was a soft fork update.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? To increase the block size to 2 MB but this would eventually push further up the block size not sovling the problem.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? It allowed for the bitcoin protocol to have scalling options and development of secon layer protocols
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? It will boost the network for faster transactions and other applications.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? They are not forced but “welcomed” to upgrade there “services” - The more are integreated, we would have lower TX fees.
A proposed alternative to segwit was to create a hard fork and just increase the block size.
It also solved tx malleability because the witness has become segregated from the tx. This means that a change in the signature will not change the hash of the tx ID.
Segwit is connected to the lightning network because segwit supports the development of second layer protocol which the lightning network is.
No one is forced to use segwit because it is a soft fork update. People who do not like segwit can use BTC cash instead.
You can also still make old style tx on Bitcoin as well.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The alternative was to implement a larger block size rather than rely on a new transaction structure
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit also solved Tx maleability problem. This in turn enabled the development of second layer protocols and smart contracts.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit enables the development of second layer protocols which is the lightning network.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
As segwit is a softfork its adoption is not forced. However the majority of people and wallets are adapting and updating to make use of it.
The alternative to SegWit was the increase of block size, that could lead to more network centralization and more stale blocks.
Transaction ID malleability issue.
SegWit made the implementation of the lightning network possible, supporting and allowing layer 2 solutions.
No, it’s a soft fork so previous wallets with the signature inside of the Tx ID are still allowed, although it’s more expensive.