Segwit Reading Assignment

[skissane]

1. Increase block size

2. Transaction malleability resulting in less block size needed and lower fees.

3.Segwit allows lightning network to keep smaller txs off chain and only settle on-chain when users want to. This is because relying on unconfirmed txns is less risky.

4.No it was a soft fork.

[thenjose]

1- increasing the block size.
2- a bug in the BTC code calle transaction malleability.
3- a per solving the transaction malleablitity bug, the possibility of implementing second layer protocols, as the lighting network, became a fact.
4- no, because SegWit was implemented as a softfork, so it is optional to everyone to adopt it and update.

[Understated_Eddie]

1. An increase in block size limit to 2MB, leading to a hard fork.

2. It resolved transaction malleability by separating signatures from transaction data. This way, the transaction data structure is hashed on its own and cannot be tampered with.

3. They are connected because Lightining looks to manage transactions off-chain in order to integrate those transactions later on in the blockchain. This would not be able to happen is you could not separate signatures from transaction data.

4. None of the above. They can all choose to operate over Segwit or not, as the original chain and new chain are compatible.

[Mesiah]

1. To hard fork and increase the size of the transaction

2. malleability which was a problem of changing the signature of the transaction and not the transaction but also keeping the fees lower

3. Segwit is the 2nd protocol of the signature for the transaction and lightning network helps speed up the peocess

4. No it is an option

[rigamortizzz]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Bigger Blocksize

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

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   It supports the development of the second layer Protocols such as Lightning network

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   no they are not the old protocol has not been changed

[Sadpanda]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing the blocksize from 1mb to 2mb.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The issue of transaction malleability. By moving the signature data from the transaction information the transaction ID couldn’t be changed anymore.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The connection is that now when segwit have fixed the issue of transaction malleability, it is possible to build on top of bitcoin by making second layer protocols such as lightning network

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No it was a soft fork.

[M3Mesa]

1. An increase in block size was the proposed alternative to Segwit.
2. In addition to the scaling issue, Segwit solved the transaction malleability problem.
3. Due to the development of Segwith the lightning network was made possible.
4. No, old addresses and transactions can still be used

[mchaney9900]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   A. Increasing block size which would cause a Hard Fork.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   A. Segwit allows more transactions per block and removing signatures from the block without changing the transaction ID.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   A. Segwit supports the second layer solution, the lighting network.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   A. No, old addresses can still be used as they are compatable with the old protocol.

[AlexanderG]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   To just increase the blocksize from 1mb to 2mb.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Stopped malleability by removing the signature from the transaction. So that if u change the signature it does not impact the transaction. If the signature would be a part of the transaction one could just change it and the transaction would still be correct but it would be a compleat new transaction in the system and break/remove the old one.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit removes the signature from transactions which is beneficial to second layer protocols. By removing malleability, features that depend on unconfirmed transactions are safer and easier to designe. (Lightning network is a second layer protocol.)

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, it’s not a hard fork. But more wallets and other services will start to implement segwit which would put the users in the new system.

[SDoyle]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

The proposed alternative to Segwit is a hard fork to increase the block size, which BCH has done.

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

Beyond scaling, Segwit enables layering of other features like lightening network. It also solves the issue of transaction malleability, which improves security.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit enables the Lightening Network to exist as a second layer protocol on top of the blockchain.

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

Since Segwit resulted in a soft fork, stakeholders like people, wallets and other services are not required to use it.

[Deufrey13]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

A potential increasing the the block size

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

Reduces transactions fees to go higher / transaction malleability by removing the signature

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit made second layer solutions possible

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

Soft fork, so nope.

[riverrat]

1. Increased block size was an alternative proposal to Segwit.
2. Segwit solved the issue of malleability. It prevents the original signature from being tampered with to change a transaction ID after the original transaction was confirmed.
3. Segwit allowed solutions like the lightning network to become practical because these 2nd layer protocols deal with unconfirmed transactions off-chain, which is now less risky with Segwit.
4. No, because it was introduced as a soft fork.

[Op1um]

1. To increase the block size and subsequently hard fork the blockchain.

2. It solved the transaction malleability issue, a vulnerability in the protocol that could allow an attacker to change the unique identifier of a transaction before it is confirmed in the network.

3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.

4. Segwit is a soft fork and therefore neither people, wallets or other services are forced to use it.

[cnhaupt]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Simply increasing the block size 2MB

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction ID Malleability

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Because of Segwit layer 2 solutions can be built.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No they are not.

[anoninuk]

Increase in blocksize which would cause a hard fork.

It solved the transaction ID Maleability.

Segwit supports second layer protocols such as the Lightning Network.

No, it is optional.

[bneroar]

1.The idea was to increase the block size.
2.Because segwit removes the signature from the transaction, any changes to the transaction by means of malleability to a signature will not effect the transaction.
3.Segwit and lightning network are connected through the fact that segwit opened up the opportunity for payment channels to take place on the lightning network.
4.At present all are compatible.

[iliyanyordanov]

@filip

• 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?

1. toremove the siganture from the transaction
2. trasactiona malleability
3. lightning network is a second layer protocols - 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. SegWit introduced a new concept called “block weight.” This is a mashup of the block size with and without the signature data, and is capped at 4MB, while the block size limit for the base transactions remains at 1MB. SegWit does not increase the block size limit, but it does enable a greater number of transactions within the 1MB blocks. The 4MB cap includes the segregated witness data, which technically does not form part of the 1MB base transaction block. SegWit activation also boosted development work on other features such as MAST (which enables more complex bitcoin smart contracts), Schnorr signatures (which would enable another transaction capacity boost) and TumbleBit (an anonymous top-layer network).
4. No. Resistance to SegWit was one of the factors behind the development of bitcoin cash, a fork of the bitcoin network which chose to implement a larger block size limit rather than rely on a new transaction structure.

[LeoSp22]

1. The alternative proposed was to increase the block size. It was then applied and led to the Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork.
2. It enabled to solve the Transaction Malleability issue by removing signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block, increasing the blockchain’s security. It also enabled the development of the Lightning Network layer protocol.
3. SegWit solved the Malleability issue, making unconfirmed transactions more secure. It was a trigger to support the development of second layer solutions such as Lightning Network, which works on such unconfirmed transactions and is able to manage them in a more secure way thanks to SegWit.
4. No, there is no obligation to use it as SegWit is compatible with the previous version of the protocol. Thanks to this feature, an Hard Fork was prevented.

[andreas_nygren]

• What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increase Blocks Sizes.

• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

TX malleability meaning Signatures are stored outside the Block**and not creation of hard fork.

• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Enables 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 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?

No, it is a soft fork, however, wallets are adding SegWit support.

[magnusnor]

@filip

• 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?

1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was a hardfork- to increase block size.
2. Segwit also solved transaction malleability by removing the signature and storing it outside the block.
3. Segwit is said to support the development of the so called lightening network and other “second layer protocols” (neither which I know what is…?).
4. No people, wallets and other services are forced to use Segwit.