Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#382

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It also solves a bug/issue that has to do with transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Without solving the transaction malleability issue, it was not really possible (from a security point of view) to deploy layer 2 solutions on top of Bitcoin.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, as Segwit is a softfork of the network, they will be able to still process old (non-Segwit) transactions.

#383

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A: to increase the block-size to 2 Mb

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
A: It also solved transaction malleability by storing the transaction signatures outside the transactions

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
A: Lightning network is a layer on top of Segwit and could not exist without it.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
A: No, but it would be advisable, certainly on the long run. When people update their wallets, they would probably not notice that they are using segwit. The procedure remains the same.

#384
  1. Block size increase
  2. Transaction Malleability
  3. Segwit made the further development of second layer possible
  4. No, soft fork and works with previous protocol
1 Like
#385

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    It would have been to increase block size from <=1Mb to 2Mb which would have caused the same problem sooner or later. With removing TX ID from TX it improved the space for more for TX.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    By removing Signature info and storing it outside the block, that way, signature and scripts can be changed without affecting the TX ID.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit boosted the lighting network bitcoin’s capacity by frequently taking off small TX from chain.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, it is optional at the moment until every wallets are added…

#386

The proposed alternate to segwit is basically increasing the block size form 1mb to 2mb.
Segwit solved the scaling issue of creating smaller transaction block sizes by removing the signatures and stopped transaction malleability.
Segwit helps enable second layer solutions like lightning network by taking out the signature and having it where smaller transactions are able to perform.
Wallets and services are not forced to use Segwit since it is a soft fork but it would help more transactions happen in the block.

1 Like
#387

1.The proposed alternative to Segwit was an increase in block size.

  1. Segwit was originally introduced to solve the problem of transaction malleability. It also helped to solve the problem of block weight in terms of the scalability issues, since it separated signatures from transactions, thus reducing the amount of data introduced into a block by each individual transaction.

  2. Segwit supports the development of second layer solutions, which is what the Lightning Network is.

  3. Nothing is forced to use Segwit since it was a soft fork on the network.

1 Like
#388
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    increase block size
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    solve the transcation malleability problem
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    make transactions faster, second layer
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    not all use it,
1 Like
#389
  1. To increase the block size but this may not have solved the problem as increased adoption might again require further increases in block size.
  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability problem by removing the signatures form the transaction block it meant that if someone changed the signature information it would not affect the transaction information.
  3. The implementation of SegWit enabled second layer protocols like the lightning network, enabling smart contracts and futher boosting Bitcoins transaction capacity.
  4. No it resulted in a Fork and Bitcoin Cash was created allowing an increase in the Block size from 1mB, but since its implementation nearly 40% of Bitcoins transactions use SegWit.
1 Like
#390
  1. Increase of the block’s size - hard fork.
  2. Transaction malleability fix.
  3. By supporting the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network and the lightning network will further boosts the transaction capacity.
  4. No, as segwit is a soft fork.
1 Like
#391
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

To increase the size of the blocks.

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

The transaction malleability problem.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwith supports the development of second layer protocols such as the Lightning network.

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

No, it is a soft fork and therefore still compatible with the old protocol.

1 Like
#392

  1. Bigger block (Rodger)

  2. Second layer called Lightning network and lower fees for transactions. More layers can now be build on BTC like smart contracts and a privacy layer.

  3. Ligjtning network is a second layer on Segwit which takes smaller transactions of the blockchain. Basically it is fast. Lightning network is fast and being adopted fast. Bisa has a huge stake in Lightning network.

  4. No

1 Like
#393

  1. Enlarging the block size to 2MB, this actually happened in the case of BitcoinCash.

  2. The potential for fraud through transaction malleability.

  3. It allows for Layer 2 applications like smart contracts and the lightning network, et. al.

  4. No, but it has been adopted by many nodes and several major players in the wallet industry.

1 Like
#394

  1. An alternative to Segwit was to enlarge the block size itself to allow more transactions.

  2. Segwit fixed the transaction malleability problem (being able to change the transaction id without changing the transaction itself), which according to the reading was the original goal of the segwit project.

  3. Segwit made second layer protocols possible and made unconfirmed transactions less risky as they now can’t be changed in anyway

  4. No both Segwit and non segwit transactions are acceptable.

1 Like
#395

  1. The community had first proposed increasing the blocksize, yet this was viewed as largely a temporary problem that came with a few more disadvantages.

  2. Segwit most importantly solved transaction malleability since signature (witness) data was removed from the transaction.

  3. Lightning Network is highly dependent on unconfirmed transactions. Segwit made these transactions less risky and easier to develop on.

  4. People are not forced to used Segwit, as it is a softfork.

1 Like
#396

1 - an increase of the BTC block size
2 - maleabliity issues (security)
3 - lightning network is a secondary layer of the blockchain that can run since segwit enable development of it …especially for smart contracts
4 - no

1 Like
#397
  1. A proposed solution was a blocksize increase which would mean a hardfork - Bcash.
  2. It solved transaction malleability which allowed anyone to change small details that modified the transaction ID and subsequently the hash.
  3. Segwit makes Lightning and second layer solutions possible because it reduces the risk of using unconfirmed transactions which is what Lightning does with small batches of off chain transactions.
  4. No, but it will spread slowly through the network as it is propagated.
1 Like
#398
  1. Increase the block size.
  2. Malleability
  3. It supports the development of 2nd layer protocols.
  4. No, many wallets have yet to add it.
1 Like
#399

  1. Increase the block size

  2. The need for a hard fork

  3. By the development of second layer protocols

4.No

#400
  1. An alternative to Segwit was the increase of the blocksize from 1MB to 2MB which leads to a bitcoin hard fork.
  2. Segwit solves the problem of transaction malleability. This was a potential exploitation issue where unconfirmed transactions could be modified in the signature of a transaction which changes the transaction ID to a new one and the old transaction ID dissapears.
  3. Through Segwit layer two solutions are enabled which means that this update is the basis of new implementation possibilities.
  4. No one is forced to use Segwit. But through Segwit smaller nodes are possible which leads to more more decentralization, because this small nodes don´t have to store the signature data. They can just request a bigger node for verification reasons (check if transaction is valid).
1 Like
#401
  1. block size increase from 1mb to 2mb, the proposal would be a Hard fork.
    2.It solves the transaction malleability, because the signature is located outside of the hash.
  2. segwit made second layer solutions possible.
    4.No, because it is a soft fork, meaning it was an uptdate that made previously valid blocks invalid. meaning it is still compatible with the old protocol.
2 Likes