went back and rewatched that video, your correct thanks 
1 Like
- Increase of the block size .
- a) Malleability - removing possibility of applying any changes to the signature from previous transaction by separating them form the block .
b) Allowing more transaction to fit in to the block .
c) Not creating hard fork . - Segwit aloud the network to create second layer … Lighting network its one of the protocols that runs on it .
- Theoretically No . But its way more beneficial to do so therefor its widely adopted .
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Bitcoin cash, a hard fork of the bitcoin network which chose to implement a larger block size limit rather than rely on a new transaction structure. - What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It solved transaction malleability. - How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The lightning network will further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready. - Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Not forced
1 Like
1/. To increase block size.
2/. Transaction malleability which allowed someone to alter the transaction after it was sent.
3/. Segwit allowed second layer protocols for lightning network to be built on.
4/. No
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Using larger block sizes. - What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It solved transaction malleability, where previously someone could change the transaction ID and scriptsig. - How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning network relies on the transaction malleability segwit upgrade, by having trust in the transaction ID the lightning network can allow multisig wallets and peer to peer transactions. - Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Blockchain can support segwit and non-segwit transactions, (I need to review the topic to fully understand how). @filip @ivan Question; who decides when and when not to use segwit?
- An alterntive was to increase the block size. Which forked bitcoin into bitcoin cash
- Solved the bug of transaction malleability, also enableing the use of sidechains.
- The update make features based upon unconfirmed transactions less risky, the lightning networks processes transactions on the sidechain that keep unconfirmed until they are deploy to the main chain.
- They are not forced to use Segwit, in fact adoption grew slow from the begining. Only main wallet providers made the update early.
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the maximum block size to 2 MB instead of 1. This would have allowed for more transactions to fit in each block and would have helped with scaling and transaction cost. This was the solution proposed and implemented by the BCH community and resulted in a hard fork.
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
In addition to just the scaling issue, Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability. Transaction malleability was a flow in the original protocol that allowed someone who received a transaction to alter the digital signature on it. While the could not alter the contents of the transaction itself, this flaw could be exploited to induce a sender to resend an already valid transaction and therefore pay twice. It was also preventing the development of second layer protocols and or smart contracts. Segwit improved both the scaling issue and the transaction malleability issue by removing signatures from the transaction entirely and storing them outside the blocks. Hence the name, segregated witness.
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The implementation of segwit made the lightning network possible. The lightning network is a second layer solution that relies on unconfirmed transactions. This is because the lightning network takes frequent and small transactions off of the main chain and adds them at a later time. Before segwit this would not have been possible.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No. Since it was a soft fork solution, not all wallets and services are forced to use it.
-
A larger blocksize
-
The real problem to solve was transaction malleability which meant that someone was able to change the transaction hash of a transaction after the transaction has been sent.
-
They both came off of the Bitcoin blockchain.
-
No. Nodes/miners are able to validate, for the most part, segwit blocks. Although nodes that have not upgraded will not understand the language in blocks that are segwit which can lead to security issues.
A1, To make the Block bigger to 2MB or more
A2, SegWit solved the transaction malleability with lower fees along with supporting a second layer solution.
A3, Segwit makes 2 layer solutions ( Lightning network) and had the Malleability Fix.
A4, No, because it was a Softfork so its within the rules before update happened.
-
The proposed alternative was increasing the block size limit which was adopted by a few of the miners and people in the community resulting in the Bitcoin cash hard fork
-
Segwit solved the problem with transaction malleability,
-
By solving the problem with transaction malleability Segwit it enabled the use of second layer solutions like the Lighting network securely and also being able to run smaller nodes .
-
No they aren’t forced to use it , because Segwit is a soft fork and it wouldn’t affect the network’s operability but i think the’d be motivated to adopt it “?”, as it would free space in the transactions an also increase speed by allowing the use of the Lighting network on different wallets and services.
-
A proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the size of the limit from 1MB to 2MB which would only be a temporary solution. Sooner or later we would reach the limit again and the same problem would be back. That would also make the TX fees higher, it would increase the requirements on hardware and it would take more time to propagate the block trough the network that could lead to possible forks.
-
It solved the problem of transaction malleability. Transaction malleability was that people could change the signature in the transaction so that the TX ID would change and made so that the person that sent the transaction could not find the transaction and would send transaction again if the person didn’t know. The problem was solved by separating the signature from the transaction, so if people wanted to change the signature now the TX ID would still be the same.
-
Because SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network. This upgrade that fixed the transaction malleability made so that any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions would be more secure and so that it could be easier to design.
-
No, they are not forced because SegWit is a softfork and since it didn’t change the size of the block, it just separated the signature from the block. Making it possible to have more space in the block.
-
A proposed option to segwit was to increase the block size limit from 1MB to 2MB. This would have led to longer confirmation times and higher transaction fees. The concern with these effects was that bitcoin’s adoption would fall. Also increasing the block size would have increased centralization by making mining more expensive with more expensive mining hardware, and it would have forced smaller miners out of business. Stale blocks and unnecessary forks would have increased as well.
A hard fork which created a new currency, Bitcoin Cash, already happened in anticipation to segwit. This currency rather increases the block size than tries to find solutions to the transaction structure.
-
It also solved the issue of transaction malleability by keeping the signature information (“witness”) separate by storing it outside the basic transaction block, and not in the transaction data structure. This way, signatures can be changed without affecting the transaction id. This upgrade enables more development in second-layer protocols, such as lightning network, and smart contracts.
-
Segwit supports the development of lightning network because solutions that rely on unconfirmed transactions are more secure and easier to design with the segwit fix. The lightning network takes frequent, small transactions off-chain, and comes back to settle in the blockchain only when necessary.
-
No, because it’s a soft fork and still compatible with the old protocol.
Every user can choose this for themselves. You just need a wallet that support segwit.
Every bitcoin address has a prefix to know how you want to send BTC. You have addresses starting with
1… (legacy)
3… P2sh (segwit compatible)
Bc1… (segwit native)
If you have a wallet that doesn’t support segwit, you wouldn’t see your utxo’s that were send to segwit addresses.
1 Like
- Increase the block size
- The mallueablilty of bitcoin tx’s
- By removing sig’s from the hash of a transaction, you can move the tx proces up a layer (to the lightning layer).
- No, but most have done so now
-
Increase block size
-
Transaction Malleability and enable transaction to run faster as well as the development of different features within Bitcoin, such as Lightning Network and MAST
-
This change allow the development of second layer protocols (Above)
-
Soft fork
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increase the block size limit. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit also fixes the transaction malleability problem by moving the signature to the outside of the main block and also allows lower fees on the network. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Development of second layer protocols, making unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, since it is a soft fork the previous rules prevail.
- Bigger block sizes (as in Bitcoin Cash) was a proposed alternative to Sewit.
- Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue, in fact that was its primary intention, with scaling a bonus.
- Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue, and this allows for second layer solutions such as Lightning Network to be deployed more safely, as those on tx ids not changing.
- Bitcoin users are not forced to use Segwit. It is optional in the sense that the older legacy addresses and wallets still work. That said, a little side note: Ledger Live no longer offers the option to create a brand new legacy Bitcoin wallet, unless there is preexisting activity on that account.
1 Like
1.Block size to be bigger
2. By taking the Signature from the TX Block and works independently
3. Segwit helped make Lightning network possible.
4. No beause it is still compatible with old protocol
1 Like
Proposed alternative to segwit was to enhance the block size
Segwit solved fraud where somebody could change a bit of the signature, making the sender think the transaction hadn’t been received and re-sending it, where the person at the receiving end would get more than they should
Lightning network is connected to bitcoin as its a second layer relies on unconfirmed transactions before it been confirmed later and therefore is connected as it relies on segwit for the maleability aspect.
People and wallets aren’t forced to use segwit, it is up to them if they introduce this to their wallets
1 Like
- The proposed alternative to Segwit was an increase in block size.
- Segwit solves transaction malleability, lowers transaction fees, and support lightening network (second layer solution).
- Segwit makes second layer solutions possible.
- No, it’s not forced upon everybody (soft fork) and is compatible with previous protocol.
1 Like