Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#4336
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  1. Proposed alternative to SegWit was increasing block size.
  2. SegWit solved transaction malleability, witness data, and quadratic hashing issues in addition to scaling.
  3. The Lightning Network is built on top of the SegWit upgrade to enable faster and cheaper transactions.
  4. No, people, wallets, and services are not forced to use SegWit but it is recommended to use it to enjoy the benefits of lower fees and faster transactions
#4337

  1. The proposition to SegWit was to increase block size, which would have been a hard fork. Therefore, that’s how Bitcoin Cash was created also;

  2. SegWit solved the transaction malleability (Signatures are not hashed with the transactions themselves) issue and, also, this solution opened room to a second layer solution, which is called Lightning network;

  3. Read 2;

  4. Since it’s a soft fork, other wallets were not forced to upgrade to this feature, but the longest chain is always considered the true one, therefore, everybody follow this one bitcoin blockchain as the true one.

#4338
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increase the size of the block, which will lead to a hard fork due to being 4mb

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

Transactions malleability

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit supports second layer development of bitcoin smart contracts and transactions capabilities.

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

It is a soft fork and more wallets are being added.

#4339
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    increase size of the block
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    transaction malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    faster and cheper transactions
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    no
#4340
  1. Bitcoin Cash
  2. Malleability
  3. Through a second layer protocol
  4. Not as of this article
#4341

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    The security issue of transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit paves the way for the Lightning network as it makes features that rely on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, as it was a soft fork and not a hard fork.

#4342
  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was called the Bitcoin Unlimited proposal, which suggested increasing the block size limit to allow for more transactions per block.
  2. Segwit solved not just the scaling issue, but also the transaction malleability issue. Transaction malleability refers to the ability of a third party to modify the transaction ID without changing the transaction itself, which could cause problems for certain Bitcoin applications.
  3. Segwit and the Lightning network are connected in that Segwit enabled the Lightning network to function more effectively by addressing the transaction malleability issue and allowing for more efficient use of transaction space.
  4. People, wallets, and other services are not forced to use Segwit, but it is generally recommended because it offers lower transaction fees and other benefits compared to using non-Segwit transactions. However, it ultimately depends on the individual’s preference and needs.
#4343

    1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

      An alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size. However, this comes with some drawbacks: it’s only a temporary solution, it increases centralization, it introduces propagation issues, and it would result in a hard fork, that is better to be avoided. Bitcoin Cash is a fork of the Bitcoin network that chose to increase the block size instead of introducing Segwit.

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

      Segwit solved the malleability issue, for which it was possible to change the ID of a transaction after the transaction had happened.

    3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

      Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

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

      No.

#4344

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    BLOCK SIZE INCREASE

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    transaction malleability and full block size problem was solved by segwit

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit and the Lightning Network are connected in the sense that SegWit’s implementation paved the way for the development and deployment of the Lightning Network. SegWit’s increased block capacity and transaction malleability fix are fundamental for the Lightning Network’s scalability and functionality.

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

No, people, wallets, and other services are not forced to use SegWit. The adoption of SegWit is optional, and it depends on the individual or organization’s choice to implement and support it.

After SegWit’s activation in August 2017, it took some time for wallets and other services to update their software to be compatible with SegWit addresses. Initially, there was a gradual adoption of SegWit, but over time, many major wallets and exchanges have integrated support for SegWit addresses.

While there are advantages to using SegWit, such as lower transaction fees and increased transaction capacity, its adoption is voluntary. Users and service providers can still use the legacy Bitcoin addresses (also known as non-SegWit or legacy addresses) if they prefer.

However, it’s worth noting that as the adoption of SegWit has increased, more transactions are being conducted using SegWit addresses. This has resulted in reduced fees for SegWit transactions compared to legacy transactions, as they take up less block space. Consequently, some services and platforms may incentivize or encourage the use of SegWit to enjoy these benefits, but it remains a choice for users and service providers.

#4345

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
INTRO: As soon as users started to use more the BTC blockchain, and it started to gain populartity and adoption, the size of the blocks started to increase. As in many other IT network, the bigger the size of the data sent, the higher the time it takes to be propagated. Also in BTC blockChain, as soos as the size of the block started to rise and reach the limit of 1Mb written in the Ruleset of the BTC protocol. And also the time before a transaction will be approved and the fees related to this operation started to increase, making the network unusable and users would stop adopt BTC.
A first sight the simplier solution, alternative to SEGWIT, was to increase the block size limit to 1MB to, ex. 2Mb but checking better, it would be impossible for many reasons, like:

  • the bigger the size of a block, the bigger the time this block takes to be distributed to the network, and another important aspect is that sooner or later, since people start to use more the net work, Block limit, will rise again, and then we will need to increase again in the block size limit.
  • The bigger the block the bigger must be the hardware, the CPU power, the electricity, decentralization is in high risk… miners would spend more in hardware to mines blocks and small miners would be cut off the market.
  • With a bigger Block Size, bigger latency time through propagation, more accidental forks would have happen

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Yes, SEGWIT solved 2 different problems with a one solution. SEGWIT updated basically was to Separate the signature information from the transaction and put them in a different database, Called segregated witness.
In this way, BTC developers realised that the size of the block decreased a lot, keeping the block more light. So, with this update it was possible to solve 2 problems with a single solution:
Reduce the size of the block and the solve the malleability issue, anyone would not the be able, changing some contents in the transaction, to generate a new ID.
With the new you size slimmed down, miners would be able to put more in formations in a single block. And the side benefit of this update was that a parallel layer of the chain started to appear. This new layer was called lightning network

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning network is a parallel chain related to the main BTC blockchain, developed after the SegWit introduction. Simply speaking it can be used to generate automated payments between two users. This transaction will not be appended to the main BC but on this parallel layer, with a small size block at very low fee, due to the absence of a mining process, no needed in this particular case, thanks the nature of the Ligthning network itself. They would set up a MultiSignatureWallet, and use it This wallet holds some amount of bitcoin. The wallet address is then saved to the bitcoin blockchain. This sets up the payment channel.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Since it’s an update fork, no one is forced to use it, but in order to improve the general appeal and performance of the network it’s recommended. Generally we have to wait Wallets industry to adopt this upgrade in their mechanism, as well as Miners and users in general.

#4346

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase the size of the block to 2 MB

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    The mailability issue which is the changing of the signatures and thereby changing the transaction ID

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit makes the LN possible thereby making smaller transaction possible off chain. Settling on chain when users are ready.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Only if they interact with the Bitcoin blockchain.

#4347

[quote=“filip, post:1, topic:8408, full:true”]
It’s time for a reading assignment about Segwit. Read through the following article https://www.coindesk.com/information/what-is-segwit , and answer the following questions.

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? To increse 1MB to 2MB blocks

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It manage to take out transaction ID from block, so its not possible to TX Malleabillity.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? There is no Lightcoin without SigWit.

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

#4348
  1. A proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the total block size.
  2. SegWit did not only solve the scaling issue but also solved transaction malleability.
  3. With SegWit and the lightning network, their connection is with layer 2 blockchains being able to be implemented on the Bitcoin Core network.
  4. Nobody is forced to incorporate SegWit but the higher number of transactions, while increasing security seem to be a win win for the community and the BTC blockchain as a whole. There are opponents to this solution but so far it has gone over very well, in my opinion thus far at least in the year 2023.
1 Like
#4349
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  • The initial proposed alternative was a block size increase from 1MB to 2MB
  1. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  • It solved transaction malleability, waiting time in the mempool, lowering fees and supported a second layer to the transaction
  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  • SegWit makes the second layer of the lightning network possible
  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  • No, older transactions, wallets and addresses can still be used because mass adoption hasn’t been forced. However going forward ie roughly 95% adoption then there be more rigorous implementation of Segwit on newer networks
#4350

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

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction malleability.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols,

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No. Segwit did not create a hard fork.

1 Like
#4351

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increase 1mB to 2mB(would have been a temporary solution).
Introduction of 1 to 2 mB would have caused a hard fork

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction malleability–By removing signature from Tx Hash

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
SegWit “supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network”

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

1 Like
#4352

  1. One of the proposed alternatives to SegWit was the Bitcoin Classic hard fork which increased the block size from 1MB to 2MB. While introduced in 2015, it has failed to be widely adopted.

  2. Besides the scaling issue, SegWit solved the issue of transaction malleability, a vulnerability that allowed a user to change a ScriptSig without invalidating the transaction.

  3. SegWit enabled the reliability and speed of the microtransactions that take place on the lightning network. With less “confusion” on the BTC network that can result from the malleability issue, Lightning can reliably keep track of all transactions on the network.

  4. No. Using SegWit is entirely voluntary but because of the new way in which blocks are “weighted”, there is more incentive to use it. Users are incentivized to use it because they will pay lower fees, and because a miner can fit more SegWit transactions in a block, they can maximize fees.

#4353
  1. The primary alternative was to simply increase block size (i.e. 1mb-2mb)
  2. In addition to solving the scaling issue, Segwit also solved the TX malleability issue by having the signatures exist outside of the tx itself.
  3. Segwit helped to make the Lightning network possible by greatly decreasing risk by fixing TX malleability.
  4. No, Segwit was a soft fork and is in essence “backward compatible” with the old rule set.
1 Like
#4354
  1. Increase the block size
  2. it prevents transaction Malleability
  3. Segewit made the implementation of unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. This is required for Lightning.
  4. No, it is optional.
1 Like
#4355

Increasing the block size to 2MB

Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue within the Bitcoin protocol

With the adoption of Segwit, layer 2 solutions like the lightening network and smart contracts can be implemented since Segwit solves the transaction malleability issue.

Yes because Segwit introduced a concept called blockchain weight which is a mashup of the block size with and without the signature data and is capped at 4MB. This means the 1MB cap at the base layer is still the same and therefore there is no need for a hard fork so everyone should be able to use it.