Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#3954

1). A proposed alternative to Segwit was to just increase the block size of BTC. The block size of BTC still remains at 1 MB. But at the time Segwit was introduced, come BTC developers saw the solution as simple as increasing the block size to 2 MB.

Anyone can see that that is a mere bandaid on the problem. Firstly, this would cause a hard fork in the chain and make previously invalid blocks valid. Secondly and more important IMHO is that this would only solve the problem for a short period of time. (Segwit has a time limit too IMO)

What happens when adoption increases and the 2 MB blocks now be come full, do we then hardfork again and make it 3 MB, 4 MB? We will reach these limits as adoption continues and do we just keep increasing the block size? Not the best solution.

2). Sewit solved transaction Malleability as well as the scaling issue.

By removing the Signatures from the input, we removed them from the hash and subsequently from the Transaction ID. Now you cannot go back and alter the TX ID by altering the signatures.

3). Sewit and the lightning network are connected as the lighting network is a second layer protocol. This boosts BTC’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions and moving them off chain. These transactions settle on chain once the users are ready.

4). No, people aren’t forced to use update. Adoption is slow.

1 Like
#3955
  1. to increase block size to 2mB.
  2. increased security, removed signatures which is a security issue but more importantly made it so a second party couldnt change the transaction id.
    3.segwit allowed for 2nd scale adoption like lightning network, excuse the improper wording.
  3. no, not exactly but generally is being adopted, example bitcoin cash did not.
1 Like
#3956
  1. to increase the block size.
  2. it also solved the problem of block malleabitlity, blocks signature hash could be changed.
  3. Segwit enables 2nd layer solutions in this case it made the lightning network possible, by fixing the malleability.
  4. no they are not, some did not agree and took the approache of expanding the blocksize that is how bitcoincash came up, it is a fork of the origninal bitcoin network.
1 Like
#3957

1.Increasing block size
2.It also solved the problem of transaction malleability because it meant any changes to the signature or script did not mean a transaction needed a new transaction ID.
3.Because SEGWIT separated the witness element it meant you could potentially build on top of Bitcoin because you could have lightweight nodes that don’t need all the signature detail. They can query larger nodes periodically to verify transactions.
4.No because it was a soft fork and non segwit addresses are still valid

1 Like
#3958
  1. To increase block size to 2Mb
  2. SegWit solved the Transaction Malleability issue where a bad actor could just change the signature maybe and consequently the Hash Id but without changing the transaction data.
  3. Segwit enables the Lightining network to process some unconfirmed transactions off the chain, not needing the signature, and put them on the chain with signatures when the users are ready.
  4. No one is used to use Segwit, that why Bitcoin Cash was formed as a fork that upgraded to 2Mb block size.
1 Like
#3959

[quote=“filip, post:1, topic:8408”]

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

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? It solved transaction malleability.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? By solving transaction malleability, offchain solutions such as lighting network can happen.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No because Segwit does not break the previous protocol.

1 Like
#3960

1 - Proposition was to increase block size rather than implement Segwit. As per Bitcoin Cash fork outcome.

2 - It solved transaction malleability by removing signatures within the data structure of each block and allows development of more complex features such as second layer protocols and smart contracts.

3 - Segwit allowed the layer two solution of the lightning network as the removal of signatures allowed the possibility of easier design and operation of less risky unconfirmed transactions due to the malleability fix.

4 - No, other people are not forced to use Segwit as the soft fork allows old addresses to to operate.

1 Like
#3961

  1. Proposed alternative to segwit is increase in block size, leading to a hardfork.

  2. Added support of second layer protocols.

  3. Segwit made it possible for lightning network to exist on BTC blockcahin as it allowed second layer protocols.

  4. As of the moment this is answered per the data in https://stats.buybitcoinworldwide.com/segwit-adoption/ there is 80% adoption for segwit. No, it is not mandate to use segwit.

1 Like
#3962
  1. Increase the block size.
  2. It also solved the problem of transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
  4. No, it’s a soft fork.
1 Like
#3963

  1. BTC Cash was proposed as an alternative to SegWit, which focused on increasing blocks size, rather than changing the TX structure.

  2. It also solved the BTC code bug that leads to TX malleability.

  3. Segwit made second layer protocols possible by eradicating the issue of TX malleability.

  4. No, they aren’t forced to use Segwit. However, it would be advantageous for them to use it since this BTC update protocol will contribute to the overall development and adoption of the network.

1 Like
#3964
  1. To increase the block size do 2mB
  2. It solved the malleability bug. Also it allowed for foundations of Lightning.
  3. Lightning requires Segwit update
  4. No, because Segwit wasn’t a hard fork. It kept the block size of 1mB. However I would recommend doing so XD
1 Like
#3965

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A: increasing the size of blocks from 1 MB to 2 MB or greater.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    A: Sigwit also solved the Transaction Mallibility issue that allowed small change in the signiture to change the blocks hash.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    A: Sigwit allowed 2nd layer protocols such as lightning network and smart contracts.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Sigwit?
    A: No - but it is to their advantage to migrate -

1 Like
#3966
  1. Increasing the block size.
  2. It stopped transaction malleability allowing other services for the network to thrive such as the lightning network.
  3. It enabled layer 2 solutions, such as the lightning network.
  4. No, it is a soft fork.
1 Like
#3967

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit is to increase the actual block size, which results in a fork.

  2. Segwit improved scalability and transaction malleability.

  3. By addressing issues around transaction the ability to change transaction signatures, it has made it easier to develop 2nd layer protocols and smart contracts. This malleability allows for one to more easily take unconfirmed transactions off chain, which is what the lightening network is providing.

  4. No, this was a soft fork. One is not required, but encouraged to do so.

1 Like
#3968

To increase the block size from 1MB to more such as 2MB etc.

It allows the increasing of more transactions in the block, lower fees and more adoptability.

Supporting the development of a second layer protocol such as lightning network brought them together.

No, none of them were forced, but they are adjusting slowly. Four major wallets have already done so.

1 Like
#3969

  1. The BTC cash hardfork was the proposed alternative which increased the block size from 1 mB to 2 mB

  2. It eliminated the full block issue as well as TX mallability

  3. Removing the signature allowed layer 2 protocols to be able to function on the network

  4. No its a soft fork, meaning it still applies to the rules before but for the purposes of wallet adoption the incentive would be to join segwits update.

1 Like
#3970

  1. Increasing the block size (4mb)

  2. It fixes the transaction malleability problem

  3. It’s case by case as it still follows the old protocol, and it would be forcing people which would lead to infighting

#3971

1- To increase the block size leading to higher gas fees and blocktime, hence, resulting on a more centralize ecosystem which is not the ideal thing.

2-Also solve a bug on the Bitcoin code where the transaction ID could be modified where attackers can make a transaction like if it was never sent by the owner. It was solved by moving the signature of the transaction apart of it so if the transaction data gets modified the signature stays the same.

3- Segwit also support the development of Lightning, which is a second layer protocol.

4- They are not force to use segwit. An example was Bitcoin Cash wish was a fork cuz some people did not agree on the segwit structure.

1 Like
#3972

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was a fork called Bitcoin Cash that raised that implemented a larger block size limit.

  2. Segwit also solved transaction malleability by removing signatures from transaction structure and storing it outside base transaction blocks. Now signatures can be changed without changing the transaction ID.

  3. Segwit supports second layer protocols and gave way for the lightning network. The lightning network will further help transaction capabilities by taking frequent transactions on the second layer until needed on the main blockchain.

  4. No, it was implemented slowly one application at time since it was not a fork.

1 Like
#3973
  1. Bitcoin cash, and making the block size bigger which would lead to a hardfork.

2.Transaction malleability.

  1. It made a second layer solution possible, such as the lightning network.

  2. It did not force wallets or ppl to use segwit, but most wallets/ people adopted it because it was better.

1 Like