Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#442
  1. Proposed alternative to Segwit was a blocksize increase.
  2. Segwit solved the fix called malleability where small changes in the transaction id were possible
    without changing the content of the block
  3. Lighning network was only possible due to Segwit implementation.
  4. Nobody is forced to use Segwit as it is a Soft Fork, but transaction fees may then be higher as well as the tx time.
1 Like
#443
  1. The proposed alternative to segwit was a hardfork that would expand the rule set to allow blocks of 2MB in size.
  2. Segwit also solved the problem the issue known as transaction malleability. They removed the signature (the witness) from the base transaction block.
  3. Segwit allowed for second layer solutions like the lightning network or rootstock to be added to the protocol. The lightning network would not exist if it was not for segwit. This is why also BCH does not have any second layer technology; they chose to do thing on chain.
  4. No, people are not forced to use segwit because it was created as a soft fork. This means it is backwards compatible and all old wallets and services will continue to work.
1 Like
#444
  1. The alternative to Segwit is the increase in block size which was used by Bitcoin Cash and the reason for their Hardfork.
  2. Segwit supports 2nd layer protocols, solved transaction malleability and reduced fees.
  3. Segwit is allowing for 2nd layer solution of which The lightning network is.
  4. No one is forced to use Segwit as it is a soft fork.
1 Like
#445

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

  1. SegWit2x protocol, which would increase blocksize from 1 megabyte to 2 megabytes.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?*

  1. Malleability , Signing of input values , Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) , Script versioning , Reducing UTXO growth , Efficiency gains when not verifying signatures

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

  1. The Lightning Network is dependent upon the underlying technology of the blockchain. (Segwit)

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

  1. Segwit is a softfork , which means it is backwards compatible with old protocol , however once adaptability reaches 95% it will be the only way.
1 Like
#446

  1. A hard fork to Bitcoin cash, which meant raising the Block limit to 2 Mb.

  2. It helped form a concrete base for further development additional layers on the protocol.

  3. Segwit’s lightening of the Tx data allows lightning network to stuff significantly more Txs’ in their offchain networks.

  4. Segwit is not forced.

1 Like
#447

  1. the alternative was to just increase the Block size to 2 mB

  2. Segwit also solved the malleability issue that enabled users to change the tx hash which was leading to a double spend problem

  3. Segwit is connected because Lightning has adopted Segwit tx and Segwit Wallets, Segwit as well solved the malleability issue and was adopted by Litecoin, Since Litecoin and Lightning Network both use Segwit, off chain Lightning Tx can store Litecoin or Segwit Enabled Bitcoin in the Lightning Nodes, the tx between nodes and atomic swaps between nodes is all performed separately from the main chains and only transmitted tx to main chains when necessary. A big group of KYC, government control loving Freaks in Malta were complaining that Lightning network derived Bitcoin shouldnt be allowed back into the main Chain because Lightning network is an added layer of Privacy!!! I just speak out against this, utter loss of Individual Rights that is taking Place and the people who are Behind it.

  4. Currently no Segwit isnt really forced thats why it was soft fork because it is backwards compatible to existing wallets, however non upgraded wallets will not have ability to utilize Segwit

1 Like
#448

  1. Block Size increase

  2. Issues with transaction id malleability

  3. Segwit was a necessary step towards the Lightning Network

  4. No, but more and more wallets added SegWit support.

1 Like
#449
  1. Increase the permitted block size.
  2. Transaction Malleability.
  3. Segwit made lightning networks possible which was difficult with transaction malleability.
  4. Segwit itself was a soft fork, and hence who did not implement it, those nodes are still in the network. Other people who didn’t want to adapt Segwit, and instead increased block size they separated because of Hard fork and created a new crypto known as bitcoin cash.
1 Like
#450

  1. The alternative was increasing the block size to 2mb instead of 1mb

  2. It also solved the TX Malleability problem

  3. Thanks to Segwit now you can develop another level of a protocol, Lightning network takes frequent small transactions of the chain and returnes them when the users are ready.

  4. They’re not forced but if they want that extra step of confidence in their product, they should.

1 Like
#451
  1. Increase the block size, which lead to Bitcoin Cash
  2. Malleability bug, this opened up for developing higher level protocols
  3. Segwit fixed the malleability bug that allowed development of lightning network.
  4. No, it’s optional.
1 Like
#452
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the blocksize.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    This is called transaction malleability. The abilty to change a transaction id by changing small details but not the content of the transaction. By taking out the signature information from the base transaction block.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    The transaction malleability solution decreased the risk with unconfirmed transactions in second layer protocols.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, because segwit is a softfork the old and new solution can work on the same chain.
1 Like
#453
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing block size to 2 megabites

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

transaction id malleability

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit solved the transaction id malleability which made 2nd layer solutions like lightening possible

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

No because it’s a soft fork but many popular wallets like ledger are supporting it

1 Like
#454

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

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit applied fix so that tx malleability was no longer an issue.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The lightning network is able to be built because of the “second layer” capabilities segwit applied.

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

1 Like
#455

1/ What was the proposed alternative to Segwit.?

Increase the blocksize, & new compatability for the new peer to peer network.

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

Transaction malleability, by moving the signatures out of the transaction data structure.

3/ How is segwit & the lightning network connected.?

Lightning network is a fix for both TXs costs & speed of the network, it is not a soft fork or an hard fork
but an additional layer.

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

No because it is a softfork…

1 Like
#456

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It solved the transaction malleability by removing the signature from the transaction id.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit enables second layer solutions and the Lightning network is one of those.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No because it was a softfork.

1 Like
#457

  1. A proposed alternative to segwit was an increase in the block size limit in the consensus rules from the current rule of <=1mb. This would be achieved by a hardfork as it is an expansion of the existing consensus rules and later was done to create bitcoin cash, which has a block size limit of 8mb.

  2. Along with the scaling issue Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability whereby previously before a transaction was confirmed an attacker would be able to edit the signature (witness) of the transaction, this edit was simply to the Sigscript of the witness. Because a transaction is hashed including all inputs, outputs and the signature, the transaction hash completely changes due to the small editting of the Sigscript. This means that the Transaction ID changes, and then the changed tx ID is confirmed and validated on the block. This means that the reciever of the transaction can then claim they could not find the transaction ID which if relevant to the purchase of goods or services or even just the case of the sender believing they have no sent the funds can result in the sender being scammed. What segwit did is removed the Signiture (Witness) from the transaction data which is hashed and stored signitures outside the transactional data instead.

Furthermore Segwit also allows for a few upgrades on the bitcoin network as it allows the development of second layer solutions such as the lightning network as well as the possibility of smart contracts being deployed and built on top of the blockchain. This could actually help solve the issue of bitcoin having a limited scope in the future

  1. Segwit allows for second layer protocols to be developed and built on top of the blockchain and The lightning network is one of these protocols. Actually the lightning network is a pretty interesting scaling solution and allows for small and frequent micro-transactions to be settled off chain meaning that only one transaction takes place on chain representing all of these micro-transactions.

  2. Nodes do not have to use the Segwit upgrade, this is because when any node not using Segwit wants to validate a block & the transactions on the block they are sent by Segwit nodes have the Signiture (Witness) removed.

2 Likes
#458

  1. Increasing the block size to 4MB as done in the Bitcoin Cash fork.

  2. Segwit halted the ability to alter a transaction ID which can be used for fraudulent purposes.

  3. Segwit allows for the use of the lightning network, which can increase BTC’s transaction capabilities.

  4. Segwit is a soft fork and therefore not required.

1 Like
#459

  1. Proponents of Segwit agreed that the upgrade solved Bitcoin’s scaling issue by removing input signature information (witness) from the transaction hash and storing it outside the base data block, hence reducing block weight and allowing more transactions to be confirmed in each block. This would also contribute to halting the potential for significantly higher transaction fees and increased confirmation times. Detractors of the proposed upgrade believed that Segwit was merely a temporary fix that kicked the can down the road, and opted to deal with the scaling issue by increasing the block size limit. Bitcoin Cash is an example of a hard fork that elected to adopt this alternative viewpoint.

  2. Segwit was initially developed as a method to block exploitative transaction activity stemming from a bug called transaction malleability – a blockchain loophole which allowed an output user to alter input signature data (thereby altering the hash and rendering the original transaction id obsolete) and then use this practice as a hoax to deceive other users in an attempt to receive additional funds. By removing the signature information from the transaction data, Segwit allows signature and scripts to be changed without altering or corrupting the transaction identification.

  3. Any feature built on top of Bitcoin that relies on unconfirmed transactions is incredibly vulnerable without Segwit adoption. Segwit supports the use and development of second layer protocols such as Lighting Network by making it less risky and easier to design.

  4. The implementation of Segwit initiated a soft fork. People, wallets and other services are therefore not forced to use Segwit because it is compatible with old protocol (falls within consensus before the upgrade) and still allows non-compliant transactions to validate on the blockchain, as well as nodes that have not yet voluntarily carried out the update to continue operation. This has resulted in a slow but steady rate of adoption on the network as more wallets and blockchain services are developing the capacity to support and implement Segwit, and more nodes complete the update.

2 Likes
#460

an alternative to segwit was increasing the blocksize of the blocks - bitcoin cash did this.

it fixed the transaction malleability issue by ensuring that if digital signatures were changed it wouldn’t change the block information and thus the hash of the block

segwit allowed for 2nd layer protocols to be built on btc so lightning would not exist w/o segwit

people wallets and services are not forced to use segwit but it is encouraged.

1 Like
#461

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
increase the block size to 4MB

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
fix a bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning network is a second layer protocol which builds on segwit.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
I think eventually

1 Like