Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#4296

The proposed alternative was Bitcoin Cash, which has a larger blocks and can handle more transactions per block. This meant a hard fork.

It also solved the malleability issue, where people could go in and change a tiny bit of information in the transaction –namely, the signature– in order for its transaction ID to change.

Segwit fixed the malleability issue, in which unconfirmed transactions could be altered. The Lightning network required this issue to be fixed, so that it could pave the way for direct, off-chain transaction channels between wallet owners.

(I found this to be a good article about Lightning and what is does.)

No, it’s a soft fork, so people can choose whether to use it or not. However, it removes the fraud sensitivity so it makes sense that people would choose Segwit.

2 Likes
#4297

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing block size which would have led to a hard fork - it is currently used by few nodes and led to Bitcoin Cash but low adoption in comparison.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Malleability issue - disabled the ability to change already confirmed hash.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Introduction of SegWit made the implementation of 2nd layer protocols like the lightening network on the bitcoin blockchain possible.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Nope. But eventually it was the norm as a very large percent of the nodes on the network have already adopted it.

1 Like
#4298

Hi AndreGu, how did you reply to each question in this format? I see that a click on each question takes me to the original Filip post. I will love to know how to do that if it is not too technical. Thanks

#4299
  1. To increase the block limit to 2MB
  2. It removed - TX Malleability - where people can change someone’s signature.
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols. This boosts transaction capacity. Essentially allowing more smart contracts to be developed. Because the network is more secure.
  4. No but they will need to if this is the direction most people are going down.
1 Like
#4300
  1. Increase of the block size.
  2. Transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit made possible for the development and implementation of the Lightning Network as a second layer solution.
  4. No. Segwit is soft fork solution so the old transactions can still be used.
1 Like
#4301

A1. Increase the block size.
A2. Malleability possibility is no more.
A3. It provided the fundamental to create lighting network
A4. No. There are free to chose which protocol they wont to go with.

1 Like
#4302

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    implement a larger block size limit

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Fix a bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability. This flaw allowed anyone to change small details that modified the transaction ID (and subsequent hash), but not the content.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    it will further boost bitcoin’s transactability by making small and frequent off-chain transactions, and will only be established on the bitcoin blockchain when users are ready.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    They are not required, because this modification constituted a soft fork, that is, compatible with current services, since the base size of the block was kept at a maximum of 1mb

1 Like
#4303

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? To fix a bug in the bitcoin code called “transaction mallability” this would allow a small change in details, that modified the transaction ID and the hash, but not in context

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Fixed transaction mallability by removing the signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block, signature and scripts cant be changed without effecting the transaction ID

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? The mallability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed TX less risky and easier to design, by taking small transactions off-chain only setting on btc blockchain when users are ready

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

1 Like
#4304
  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the size of the block. This did happen and created a hardfork of bitcoin which is how Bitcoin cash was created.
  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability
  3. Through the implementation of Segwit Bitcoin was able to develop layer 2 protocols which is what the lightning network is.
  4. No they are not forced to use SegWit, however more nodes and wallets are implementing and adopting SegWit support.
2 Likes
#4305

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It solved the Tx malleability issue by removing the signatures, which could have caused double spending.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit allows layer 2 protocols to operate on top of the BTC layer 1 network, it also protects the lightning network from Tx malleability attacks

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, due to the nature of a soft fork, nodes can choose to not update, only majority of nodes was necessary to implement the change but the remaining 49% dont have to conform.

2 Likes
#4306
  1. BCH the Hard Fork which has been done to increment the size of the blocks.
  2. Transactions malleability. Store the signature outside the blocks. The foundations were built to be able to construct the layer 2 lighting network also.
  3. The lightning network will make frequent small transactions off the chain, depositing them on the bitcoin blockchain only when users are ready, creating space optimisation.
  4. No no people can continue to use the wallets that have not yet received the segwit implementation without any problems as a soft fork has been created.
1 Like
#4307

Wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit because it is still compatible with old protocol

1 Like
#4308

1 bitcoin cash. they decided to maintain the same tx structure and changed the block size limit

2 Segwit solved the problem correlated to tx malleability. with segwit the signature is stored outside the base tx block so a malicious modification of the signature will not modify the TxId

3 Segwit and the lightning network are connected in the aim of reducing the onchain load

4 people, wallets and services are not forced to use segwit, it is not an hardfork and it is compatible with old protocol

1 Like
#4309

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increased block size.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction malleability, low fees and supports a second layer solution.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit supports a second layer solution and the is the Ligtening Network. Its boosts bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No. However, more wallets and are adding it and this will have its advantages - fees will go down, second layer protocols will get a boost.

1 Like
#4310
  1. Increasing the block size. Bitcoin Cash does this
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. Segwit fixed the malleability issue, reducing the risk of features like Lightning network that rely on unconfirmed transactions
  4. No, but adoption is currently at 80% so Segwit is moving in the right direction
1 Like
#4311

**1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase Bitcoin block size limit from the current 1MB to 2M.

  1. Beyond increasing the amount of transactions that could fit in a block by reducing its size by removing the the signature a.k.a witness info from the tx, this way Segwit solved the transacion malleability problem.

3- Solving the tx malleability, Segwit helps Bitcoin scalability and second layer projects such as Lightning, specially because any of these features that depends of unconfirmed transactions could be easier developed with more security.

4- No, it was a soft fork, nodes are not forced to Segwit implementations, though it was adopted quite generally.

1 Like
#4312
  1. The alternative to Segwit was just to increase the block size.
  1. It also solved the TX malleability problem and made enhanced second layer solution.
  1. Through Segwit the Lightning network is less risky and applicable.
  1. As this was a soft fork, noone is forced to use the update. Nevertheless the majority has adopted it.
1 Like
#4313

  1. To increase the block size

  2. Made the network for secure. Resolved transaction malleability. Faster transactions which also makes transaction fees cheaper. Makes new developments possible.

  3. SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols such as lightening network. Lightening network also had scalability problems and wouldn’t work without segwit. it allows users to set up payment channels for micropayments. Without segwit, users could alter transaction id’s in multi-signature transactions using transaction malleability prior to the transaction being put on main blockchain.

  4. No people and wallets are not forced to use segwit. It is not mandatory and hasn’t been fully adopted by the Bitcoin network .

1 Like
#4314

  1. Increase in block size, leading to a hard fork

  2. Solves transaction malleability, lowering transaction fees and allowing for a second layer solution.

  3. SegWit allows for second layer solutions such as the Lightning Network.

  4. No, it is compatible with the old protocol

2 Likes
#4315

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The alternative solution was to increase the block size.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit solved the transaction id malleability issue.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit found a solution to support second layer protocols like lightening network.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, people are not forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork and people can still continue to stay on the same blockchain following old rules.

1 Like