What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
1.change the size limit of a block.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
1.Increase the block size.
2. It fix the transaction malleability.
3. Segwig support the second layer solution, it has to be together.
4.no
The proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the block size.
Segwit also solved the transaction Malleability issue as well, by removing the signature from the actual hash that is the transaction ID.
Segwit helped make the lightning network possible.
No it was a soft fork. Old addresses and transactions can still be used.
2, As well as offering scalability, Segwit fixed a bug in the bitcoin code
called transaction malleability.
Segwit supports the development second layer protocols
such as the lightning network. It will boost bitcoin’s transaction
capacity by taking frequent, small transaction off the chain.
Many wallets have yet to add Segwit support. People are
not forced to use Segwit.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
-Increasing the block size limit
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
-Second layer protocols that addresses the transaction malleability issue.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
-Makes relying on unconfirmed transaction less risky. Boosts development work on features such as MAST, Schnorr signatures, and TumbleBit.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
-No, it is a soft fork in which old addresses and transactions can be used.
The proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the block size from 1mB.
Segwit solves more than just the scaling issue by also fixing a security issue or “bug”, which allowed receiving users to alter the sender’s signature, thereby altering the transaction ID and fooling the sender into thinking the transaction was never made.
By fixing the malleability issue, segwit made layer 2 solutions that rely on unconfirmed transactions, such as the lightning network, possible.
The use of segwit is not forced, as segwit is a soft fork update.
1)The alternative proposal to segwit was to increase the block space from 1MB to 2 MB.
2)it solved for both scaling and transaction malleability
3) Segwit and lighting network is connected as it has made a second layer and ensured that lighting network can process more transactions.
4) No they are not forced to use it as i is a soft fork.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing block size.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It fixed transaction malleability issues.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit decreases risk when implementing 2nd layer protocols like Lightning Network by solving the transaction malleability issue, thus rendering unconfirmed transactions more secure.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it was a soft fork.
Bitcoin cash, which decided to increase the Blocksize limit. This became a hard fork. - a different chain.
Segwit helped reduce malleability from the network by removing the signature information and stored it beside the base transaction block. With those signatures and scripts can be changed without altering the transaction ID. This also helped enable 2nd layer protocols -
Such as the lighting network. Which will also help boost the bitcoin transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off chain and only settling on the Bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready. But I do not fully understand the lighting network atm and i’ll learn more as times moves on.
n. Segwit is not a different Coin or a Hard fork. It is a feature that was added to Bitcoin. You can choose not to upgrade, because segwit also enables support of unupgraded nodes.
1
Bitcoin cash
2
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).
3
The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
4
NO
An increase in block size.
Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability thanks to the signature being moved outside on the base transaction block.
The lightning network would either not exist or would have been designed in a very different way if segwit had not been implemented. Segwit allowed the use of 2nd layer protocols like the Lighting network.
No, it was a soft fork. However, segwit is being implemented by many.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative was to increase block size.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit also eliminated transaction malleability and created a more secure network. This also has made it possible for smart contracts and second-layer protocols to be built on the network.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The lightning network takes small and frequent transactions off-chain to speed up the network and allow them to be confirmed only when the network is ready to do so.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Only the ones who accept the update. Some have rejected it and that is how Bitcoin Cash was created.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
*increasing the block size limit
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
*the malleability of transaction ID
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
*Before the implementation of SegWit, features such as “lightning network” which relies on the data of unconfirmed transactions are not reliable because the Hash can be easily change by manipulating the signatures through the script.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
*In a way that the minority have no choice but to follow the majority, Yes