Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#3894

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Ans : Increase the block size

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Ans : It solved the block size issue, as well as the Transaction Malleability

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Ans : Both have worked to solve the scalability issues

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Ans : No

1 Like
#3895

An alternative proposed was to increase the block size storage of btc to 2mb

The new segwit block allowed for a format in which digital signatures are moved outside of the base transaction block and also allowing witness data to be moved so that more transaction data can fit within the 1 mb block. Despite the format being a soft fork
3.
Segwit not only helped the network become more secure against transaction malleability and lower transaction fees, it also built a lightning network that allowed for small transactions to be off the blockchain until the users are ready. Allowing for a theoretical scaleability in the future.

As a soft fork, users are not forced to use segwit. And while most wallets do add segwit support, there are alternatives such as bitcoin cash for those who are unhappy with the segwit direction.

1 Like
#3896
  1. Increasing the block size.
  2. the malleable transaction ID issue.
  3. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
  4. No. It is a soft fork.
1 Like
#3897
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    • Increase the blocksize to 2mb
      • Hard fork
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    • Also solved the Tx Malleability issue
      • Signatures removed from Tx
        • Therefore TXID unchanged when signature tampered with
      • Allowed for the development of
        • Layer 2 protocols
        • Smart contracts
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    • The malleability fix enabled less risky
      • Features that relied on unconfirmed Tx
      • Small Tx taken off chain and settled later on chain when users ready
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    • No it’s a soft fork
      • Previous Tx still valid
1 Like
#3898

1.) Bitcoin Cash with a larger blocksize limit of 32 MB, instead of 1MB.
2.) A security issue, where it was possible to change the signature to a transaction, and therefore, to feign a problem with the transaction, because the modified signature led to a changed hash.
3.)The lightning network is dependent on a second layer protocol.Second layer protocols were made possible by the Segwit fork.
4.) No, but the acceptance came over time.

1 Like
#3899

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increaze the block size.

  2. Other than just scaling issues Segwit solved Transaction ID malleability also allowing 2nd layer solutions.

  3. Segwit and lightning network are connected because Segwit is was made layer 2 solution possible like lightning network.

  4. No since this is an example of a soft fork.

1 Like
#3900
  1. Increase in block size ie 1mb to 2mb etc
  2. Other than scaling issues it also resolved TX malleability
  3. Enabled the possibility of layer 2 solution like the lighting network
  4. No its is not forced, segwit is a soft fork
1 Like
#3901

  1. To increase the size of a block

  2. It solved the transaction malleability.

  3. It supports the development of lightning network.

  4. It is still compatible with the old protocol so no one are forced to use Segwit.

1 Like
#3902

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size.

  2. Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability as well as the scaling issues.

  3. Segwit enables the lightning network to operate by making it less risky to rely on unconfirmed transactions and easier to design.

  4. No, people, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork, but in the future I believe it will be more beneficial to the network.

1 Like
#3903
  1. Make each block size bigger, Bitcoin cash is an example.
  2. The transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
  4. No because it was a soft fork
1 Like
#3904

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the block size from 1mB to 2mB

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwith solved the transaction malleability issue in which bad actors could change signature inside transaction resulting in a new hash making it appear to a sender the original transaction “disappeared” and allowing recipient to request another transaction as well as holding on to the initial transaction which is appearing under a new hash. This allows for less risk when dealing with unconfirmed transactions since adjusting signatures doesn’t lead to a new hash.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwith supports the development of second layer solutions like the lightning network where settlements can occur off chain until users are ready.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, this is equivalent to a soft fork.

1 Like
#3905
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Some people proposed increasing the block size like bitcoin cash did but most people viewed this as just pushing the problem down the road.

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

Segwit also solved the transaction malleability problem that let someone alter the signature info of the transaction which could lead to someone recieving more bitcoin than they should.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

The addition of Segwit to the Bitcoin blockchain made 2nd layer protocols a possibility and the lightening network is a 2nd layer protocol used to take transactions off the blockchain and work with them before settling them on chain.

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

No, not all wallets support Segwit so some people can’t use it but enough people are using it that is having it’s desired effect of making the bitcoin transactions smaller.

1 Like
#3906

Segwit Reading Assignment

  1. Increase the block sizes.

  2. Solutions to Transaction malleability.

  3. Both boost development work.

  4. Completely optional.

1 Like
#3907
  1. Increasing the block size over 1 mb
  2. Maleability
  3. Lightning Network relies o first layer for final settlement.
  4. It’s optional.
1 Like
#3908

Increasing the overall block size above 1mb.

Segwit solved the bug of transaction malleability.

Solving the transaction malleability bug made unconfirmed transactions less risky and therefore enabled the development of the lighting network.

No they can continue using non segwit transactions but most wallets and services have upgraded or are planning to.

1 Like
#3909
  1. Alternatively to SegWit it was also proposed to increase the size of the block.
  2. SegWit beside solwing scaling issue also solved Transaction Malleability, by removing signatures from the Transaction data that is used to generate Transaction ID hash which were malleable.
  3. SegWit update by removing signatures from generating TX ID hash made more room and safe space for second layer protocols development such as Lightning Network.
  4. No, SegWit is a soft fork update still compatible with old protocol and it is optional, by now running on more than 90% of all nodes it is the way forward.
1 Like
#3910

  1. Increase the block size of 1 MB.

  2. The Malleability issue. The hash of the block can be changed modifying the signatures of the transaction in order to “cheat” the blockchain by not allowing to check the modified transaction.

  3. The fix of the malleability issue allow developing second layer protocols that would have been vulnerable if that issuen had not been fixed.

  4. No because it is not a Hard Fork.

1 Like
#3911

  1. Increasing the block size as don in the case of bitcoin cash.

  2. Transaction malleability which was achieved by changing the transaction structure on the network in which signatures were not part of the the items hashed to form a transaction ID and as such alterations to signatures had no way of affecting the transaction ID of a particular transaction.

  3. Segwit allowed for layer 2 solutions on the bitcoin network which are scaling solutions that allow for unconfirmed transactions to be stored before settling them on the network when the users are ready to confirm them.

  4. NO they are not since it was not intended to be a fork. However those who did not agree with the new consensus simply implemented a block size increase consensus which led to bitcoin cash.

1 Like
#3912

Homework - What is Segwit

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

an alternative to segwit was to make the block size larger

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

It also solved the issue with tx malleability

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit supports the development of Lightening network which is a second layer protocol

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

No. It was a soft fork so still falls within the rules before the update

Cheers :woman_cartwheeling:

1 Like
#3913
  • Another proposed alternative to Segwit was the block size increase 2mb.
  • Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability.
  • Because now the transaction IDs can’t be changed anymore, second-layer solutions, such as the Lightning network, can rely on the IDs and work with them without having to wait for confirmation by miners.
  • SegWit is a soft fork, meaning that nobody has to use construct a segwit transaction in order to be accepted by the network.
1 Like