Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#542
  1. to increase block size.
  2. tx malleability.
  3. lightning network needs sigwit to function
  4. no.
1 Like
#543

That we would increase the size of the blocks but this would not really solve the problem it was more of a temporary solution.
2.
It solved transaction malleability becouse the issue was because of the possibility to change the digital signature and confuse the counterpart. But now the digital signature is removed from the transaction.
3.
Segwit makes it possible to build on top of bitcoin with a second protocol like lightning network.
4.
No, becouse it was a soft fork so the wallet that wants to implement it if they want or if they don’t then they don’t have to.

1 Like
#544
  1. Increase the block size.
  2. It solved the problem of transaction malleability.
  3. SegWit made the lightning network and second-layer protocol possible.
  4. No, because SegWit is a soft fork. Anyone who wants to can continue to use old transactions.
1 Like
#545
  1. To increase block size.
  2. It also solved transaction ID malleability issue.
  3. With Segwit it became possible to add second layer protocol.
  4. No, adoption of Segwit is voluntarily for each node.
1 Like
#546
  1. Hard fork
  2. Full capacity of the blocks tx Malleability.
  3. Second Layer Tx on the lightning network go to a block only when they are ready, decreasing the space on the block.
  4. No as it is compatible
#547
  1. Increase of block size.
  2. TX malleability
  3. Segwit enables the second layer solutions to be implemented because it made unconfirmed transactions less risky
  4. No they are not forced, in fact not everyone today is using Segwit… it was a soft fork.
1 Like
#548

  1. One proposed alternative to segwit was to make blocks larger than 1MB.

  2. It solved the problem of transaction malleability, changing signatures no longer changed the hash of transactions.

  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols like lightning network.

  4. People are not forced to use segwit, it is a soft fork update and at the time of my response, adoption is only at about 40%.

1 Like
#549

  1. Bitcoin cash

  2. Malleability

  3. They are connected via payment channels.

4.No

#550
  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 transaction malleability as well.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit made possible the development of second layer protocols as Lightning network.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No the adoption is transitional.
1 Like
#551

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

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Not only did it lower the size of transactions allowing for more, but it also solved the malleability issues.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit supports second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No. Segwit is a soft fork. Anyone is free to adopt it, but not forced.

1 Like
#552
  1. Increasing the block size
  2. It removed the issue of transaction malleability
  3. Segwit allows for second layer protocols like Lightning that rely on unconfirmed transactions
  4. No, but segwit is being adopted because of its benefits
1 Like
#553

  1. An increase in block size.

  2. Segwit increased the capacity the capacity of the bitcoin block size without changing their size limit.
    Provides the transaction malleability fix.
    No hard fork was required,only a soft fork.

  3. Segwit provides the transaction malleability fix and practicality for lightning on the bitcoin network.

  4. No. It was a soft fork. Many wallets and other bitcoin services are gradually adjusting their software,
    others are reluctant to do so because of the perceived risk and cost.

1 Like
#554
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase block size.
  2. Another issue besides scaling that Segwit solved was Transaction Malleability.
  3. Segwit and the Lightning network are connected where with the Lightning network will take small and frequent transactions off-chain, and only putting them on the bitcoin blockchain when users are ready. (still interested in knowing more about this…)
  4. No one is forced to use Segwit, and therefore it is not a hardfork in the blockchain. Even with its obvious greater solutions, it has had a fairly slow adoption.
1 Like
#555 
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?To increase the size of the blocks
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?It also solved the issue of transaction malleability.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?made second layer solutions possible.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft fork).
#556
  1. Increase block size to 4 MB.
  2. Also segwit solved the transaction malleability.
  3. SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, the lightning network.
  4. No, they aren’t.
1 Like
#557

  1. To increase the Blocksize limit.

  2. Transaction malleability, that the transaction id could be altered without changing the actual content of the tx, by changing the witness data. This loophole could be abused

  3. The Segwit update allowed secondary layer structures to be implemented much easier.

  4. No, its a soft fork update.

1 Like
#558

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing the block size that would lead to a hard fork.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It solved the transaction malleability problem. This stops recipients tempering with the sig of the transaction by leaving the sig outside the transaction.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
They are both a layer on top of the bitcoin protocol, and they both boost the block capacity.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No they are not, they could still respect the previous protocol like a soft fork, but it would benefit them to upgrade the system sins it lowers the transaction fees.

1 Like
#559
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing the Block size.

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

It prevented the transaction malleability issue which paved the way for second layer protocols such as lightening network and TumbleBit.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Lightening network development could not begin development or implementation without first addressing transaction malleability.

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

No, it is being adopted slowly and voluntarily.

1 Like
#560

  1. A competing proposal was to merely increase the allowed block size from 1MB to 2MB.

  2. Segwit also fixed transaction malleability because the hash/Id of the transaction would no longer include the signature. So changing the signature would not alter the TX Id anymore.

  3. The Lightning network is a so called layer 2 protocol which can only work if it can rely on the immutability of unconfirmed transactions. Segwit provides safer and easier implementations of lightning network and similar layer 2 protocols.

  4. No one is forced to upgrade to Segwit, since the developers managed to introduce this update through a soft-fork. However, the more adoption Segwit sees, the less expensive single transactions will become and the throughput of transactions per second will increase.

1 Like
#561

1* Proposed alternative to segwit was increased block size.
2* It solved the issue of transaction malleability.
3* Supports the development of second layer protocols.
4* No because it is still compatible with old protocol.

1 Like