1- Block size increases, but it will cause the same problem very soon since the growth speed of the size of the block is very high. It would also cause hard fork.
2- Transaction Malleability which is changing the transaction signature which will lead the tx ID differs. Also it prevented the hard fork because of the alternative solution might create.
3- SegWit supports the second layer protocol such as lightning network.
4- No they aren’t. SegWit was a soft fork.
To make larger blocks.
It removed the transaction malleability problem,
It helped development of the second layer protocols like the lightning network that will speed up the process of transactions by taking the smaller ones off chain until the person is ready to settle,
and other features like MAST that will allow more complex smart contacts.
People, Wallets and services are not forced to use Segwit but adoption is being taking up by people, wallets and services so its a sort fork
The other main alternative to segwit to deal with the full block issue is to increase the block size - initially from 1MB to 2MB or 4MB. This however, would cause a hard fork and would potentially need to increase further down the track. It’s also argued that it would promote the centralisation of the bitcoin network.
Segwit also fixed the malleability bug through separating the signature data from the base transaction data. This meant that if the signature data were to be changed, the transaction ID would remain the same if the input signature was altered.
With the implementation of segwit, it made layers built on top of unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. With the malleability bug fixed, building 2nd layer protocols on top of the bitcoin base layer were able to function. The lightning network was built on top of the bitcoin base layer, which was made possible only after the implementation of segwit.
Since the segwit implementation was a soft fork of the bitcoin network, it means that not every node or wallet on the network is required to use segwit. It is still possible to legacy blocks (non Segwit) to be validly passed to the blockchain.
To increase block size.
It solved the malleability issue, allowed for lower fees and second layer solutions.
Sensitive allowed second layer solutions such as the lightning network.
No other people, wallets, and other services are not forced to upgrade and can still continue as normal as it is a soft fork.
A proposed alternative to SegWit was essentially a block size increase.
SegWit solved two major problems: block size limits (which was putting pressure on tx fees and slowing the network), and transaction malleability.
SegWit made it easier to develop second-layer protocols (like the lightning network) by fixing the malleability problem.
People, wallets, & other services are not forced to use SegWit. It is a soft fork, and compatible with previous data.
Bitcoin Cash is a fork of bitcoin which decided to implement larger block size instead of segwith.
Segwit also solved the Tx malleability issue while decreasing the size of TX so that more will fit into each block.
By removing the signatures as part of the transaction block, that allows lightning network features to remove small transactions off-chain until the user is ready. Allowing to focus on specific transactions to be pushed through much faster.
No they are not forced to but as the space as a whole adopts the updates eventually it will be harder to not use the segwit protocol. As segwit is adopted bitcoin fees will drop as the blocks contain more transactions.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
to upgrade the block size supported by the network to allow for more transactions to be included in the block
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It also addressed the Transaction ID malleability
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
because transaction malleability was addressed it allowed for layer 2 network support looking at advanced & additional features for Bitcoin
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, this was implemented as a soft fork, this made the new solution backwards compatible with current (pre Segwit) version of the protocol.
Block size increase which also lead to hard fork.
The transaction malleability.
Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
No, it’s compatible with the previous protocol state.
Increasing block size.
SegWit fixed the transaction malleability problem by storing the signature (witness) outside the base block.
The implementation of segwit allowed for the Lightning Network to appear, as an additional layer, that allows for instant low costs transactions, and allows to trade for example a bitcoin to litecoin without an exchange.
Segwit is backwards compatible (soft fork) so no one was forced to use Segwit, but it was slowly seem adoption from users and major wallets.
Bitcoin Cash was a proposed alternative to Segwit, this was an implementation of increasing the block size rather than separate the transaction signature.
Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability. As the transaction signature was now stored separately from the data this removed the possibility of generating a new transaction ID from editing the signature of the senders transaction.
Segwit supports second layer protocols such as the lightning network. They both complement each other in a way that the lightning network also reduces congestion by taking smaller, frequent transactions off-chain until they are ready.
No as they can simply use wallets and services that have not implemented Segwit, as well as Bitcoin Cash. Additionally as adoption grows this would be more and more difficult anyway.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
–> increase in block size
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
–> malleability was prevented by detaching the signature from the transaction
–> reduced transaction fees by decreasing transaction size (signatures are large)
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
–> by detaching the signature into a separate building block it is possible to use this building block and integrate services on top of it (second layer)
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
–> it’s a soft fork so people are not forced to. if they don’t upgrade they won’t be able to make any sense of these transactions however
Increase block size which created a hard fork that created Bitcoin Cash.
It also solved TX malleability by removing the signature from the TX so that when someone changes the signature it doesnt change the TX ID because it is no longer part of the info being hashed.
Segwit helped the development of second layer protocols with the malleability fix by making any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky.
No it was a soft fork.
SegWit hasn’t been fully adopted by all Bitcoin network participants because it isn’t mandatory, so you can still make old style transactions and it does make sense in the network.