Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#3614

1- A Hard Fork. Increase of the block size. If implemented that would eventually cause more problems later on.
2. because it also allowed for transaction mailability
3. Segwit made bitcoin lighter and therefore easier to transport over the network.
4. No. It is not mandatory to use it and as a result some decided not to adopt it.

1 Like
#3615
  1. The proposed alternative to segelt was to increase the block size limit.
  2. Besides the scaling issue, Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue.
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols like the Lightning network, which allows frequent and small transactions off-chain in order to decongest the network and help with the scaling issue.
  4. No it is not mandatory to wallets to run the update.
1 Like
#3616

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The initial idea was to increase the max size of a block to 2mb, but it would have been only a temporary fix…

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It solves the bug called “transaction malleability”, it removed the signature from the block and stores it outside of the blockchain.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Without the “transaction malleability” bug, the second layer technologies has been made possible.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No they have the choice to use both, we are indeed a in soft fork situation here.

1 Like
#3617
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A: Increasing the block size.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    A: Solved transaction malleability.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    A: Segwit supports the lightning network (second layer solution)
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    A: No. Segwit is a soft fork so old transactions are still valid.
1 Like
#3618

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase block size from 1 mB to 2mB.

  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue by making signatures separate from the actual transaction. Transaction IDs could no longer be changed by changing the signature.

  3. Segwit allowed for layer 2 protocols on the bitcoin network like the lightning network to be less risky and easier to design because of the transaction malleability fix.

  4. No one is forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork. However, now that the update is widely accepted, it would be more difficult to get a transaction confirmed that does not follow Segwit.

1 Like
#3619

  1. Increasing the block size to 2 MB was proposed as an alternative to segwit but would lead to more accidental forks, and would eventually be in the same situation; having full blocks and having high transaction fees.

  2. Segwit also solved the malleability problem. By removing the transaction ID from the block and having it stored outside the block it made it so that changing an ID wouldn’t alter the contents of the block.

  3. Segwit made it possible to put smaller more frequent transactions on the lightning network(a 2nd layer).

  4. Some wallets at the time of writing were not using segwit, since this is a soft fork many nodes never did the upgrade, since their previous protocol is still valid.

1 Like
#3620
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increase the block size.

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

Transaction Malleability

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit makes layer 2 solutions for Bitcoin, like the Lightning network, possible.

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

No

1 Like
#3621
  1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size which created a hard fork now called bitcoin cash
  2. Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability which can change the transaction ID and subsequently the hash
  3. the Lightening network is a second layer protocol to bitcoin that allows for small, frequent transactions to be taken off chain only settling on the blockchain when ready boosting bitcoin capacity
  4. No other services are not forced to use segwit. Considered a soft fork
1 Like
#3622

1- Block size increase

2- SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information.

3- Second layer protocols.

4- No, it is a soft fork, however, as time goes by, wallets are adding SegWit support.

1 Like
#3623
  1. An alternative proposal was to provide an increase in the capacity of the blocks.
  2. With the solution for the malleability of transactions, the network became less vulnerable to fraud and inconsistencies. It also enabled the development of second layer projects.
  3. SegWit makes unconfirmed transactions more reliable. Lightning Network is an offchain micropayment network. Thus it depends on the fidelity and immutability of unconfirmed transactions. SegWit provided this security.
  4. No. This is a softfork update that has been progressively adopted as wallets and services provide support to SegWit.
1 Like
#3624

Double the blocksize

the TX malleability

By Segwit you could build an extra layer on Bitcoin, suchs as Lightning network

No

1 Like
#3625

  1. It was to increase block size.

  2. The malleability of txs.

  3. With segwit they made a second layer possible.

  4. No

1 Like
#3626

  1. It was to increase the size of the blocks (So a hardfork, like BCH).

  2. It helped with tackling the malleability of txs (taking out the signatures out of the contents of the block, thus preventing people from altering the details of transactions)

  3. The lightening network is a Layer 2 (L2) protocol built un top of SegWit and helps to increase the throughput of transactions (it does this by processing small transactions offchain).

  4. Nope. People, wallets and other services can still operate using the normal BTC processes, but overtime, a lot of them will move to SegWit, especially when the block height increases more than the previous ways of transacting (idk if this made sense).

1 Like
#3627

1.It is for increasing the size of the blocks.
2.It fixed transaction issue to make more secure network
3.Segwit changed and allowed develpopment for second layer protocols, on which lightening network was built.
4.No because it is still compatible with old protocol.

1 Like
#3628

1.A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size.
( >1MB )
2. Segwit solves TX malleability as the TX signature is now removed from the block as it has been verified previously.
3. Segwit and lightning network are connected due to Segwit supporting layer 2 applications, creating greater security the malleability fix allows an increase in small bitcoin transactions off-chain then adding to the blockchain when appropriate.

  1. No Segwit is optional (soft fork) it has not been implemented by the whole community and some nodes still use the old protocol.
1 Like
#3629
  1. To increase the block size. This was not ideal as this is only a temporary solution, and will increase centralization for mining as less miners will mine (more block size, less profit).
  2. It solved transaction malleability by segregating the signature (witness) from the main transaction block.
  3. Segwit was first implemented in Litecoin on May 10, 2017 and then in Bitcoin on August 23, 2017.
  4. No, because it was a softfork.
1 Like
#3630

  1. A hard fork and increased block height from 1 to 2 mB

  2. It also solved the transaction malleability issue

  3. Segwit allowed 2nd layer protocols such as lightning network to take small transactions off chain

  4. No, it is a soft fork

1 Like
#3631 
1. To increase the size of the blocks.
2. Transaction malleability.
3. second layer solutions were made possible.
4. No (soft fork).
1 Like
#3632

The question was about the Lightning network, not Lightcoin :smiley:

#3633

Ah thanks for correcting me. What would the correct answer here be? I didn’t see much written about the lightning network specifically in the article.