Segwit Reading Assignment

[ibin]

1 - What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increase the block size from 1M to 2M.

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

It stopped the transaction mutability security threat.

3 - How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

The ligtning network application sits on top of the bitcoin network, which the segwit implementation assists to mitigate securty risks.

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

No, a code modification was made allowing users to skip over an unrecognized command, thus giving users a choice.

[jguida1]

1. Larger block sizes
2. Allows BTC to more easily add second layer solutions
3. Segwit allows more flexibility in adding second layers because it eliminates the tx malleability problem
   4.No it is a SF to the protocol

[mjwatson10]

1. Increase size of max block size
2. Transaction malleability
3. Segwit enabled seconded layer solutions like lightning network to be built on bitcoin
4. They weren’t force, old addresses can still be used

[rbrownlow]

1. The proposed alternative was to increase the block size which Bitcoin Cash ended up doing instead of implementing SegWit.

2. Segwit solved both the scaling issue and transaction malleability. This means that transaction IDs could not be altered by someone by changing the input signature in the transaction.

3. Segwit and Lightning network are both second layer protocols that will increase the transaction capacity of Bitcoin. Segwit removes the signatures from the transaction and lightning will put smaller transactions off chain to free space for other transactions.

4. No, it takes time for different wallets and services to implement support for Segwit. If people aren’t interested in Segwit, there are alternatives they could use such as Bitcoin Cash.

[MartinK]

1. as an alternative to segwit an icreasing of the blocksize was proposed.
2. segwit also solved the transaction melleability problem.
3. segwit supports second layer protocols possible like its used in the lightning networks.
4. no, its a soft fork so the old version van still be used!

[Fabiana]

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

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

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit supported the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network. The malleability fix made any features that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and the lightning network boosted the bitcoin’s transactions capacity.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No. Segwit is compatible with the old protocol.

[IamBoch_Kenn]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Block size increase.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   It also solved transaction malleability which in turn allows easier deployment of lightning
   network.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit made second layer solutions such as the lightening network possible.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, because the new protocol is still compatible with the old protocol.

[Mauro]

@pascaldeb

4. no directly , indirectly with time yes…

More and more wallets will adopt it. It will always be a soft fork. But I do get what you wanted to say. Good answer.

[Granmajax]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   increasing the allowed size of the block.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Solved the Possible malleability of a Transaction ID and increased the security of a transaction and made it easier for deployment of Lightning network
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? SegWit supported the development of second layer protocols, like litghning network.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No. Its optional, but logical

[Neeraj_Nerlekar]

1. The proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the block size.
2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue.
3. SegWit allowed the development of the second layer of protocol and made the lightning network possible.
4. No. It is a soft fork.

[Caupuri]

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

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Segwit also fixed transaction malleability.

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, it’s optional.

[Cody_Mulcahy]

@filip

• What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
• Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was a hard fork.

2. Transaction malleability

3. The addition of SegWit allowed support for second layer protocols like the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network allows a boost to BTCs transaction capacity by taking frequent and small transactions off-chain.

4. No. In fact, there are some wallets that have yet to adapt. However, most of the more popular wallets will allow SegWit transactions.

[Travis]

1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the max size of a block

2. Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability.

3. The Segwit network allowed the lightning network to come to be by solving the issue of transaction malleability

4. No they are not.

[Drew_Mackey]

1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was going to be an expansion update to the consensus rules, increasing the block size from 1mB to 2mB, 8mB, and even 32mB. This would have only been a temporary fix, and also lead to the weakening of the protocol’s decentralization giving more power to those who had the proper resources to mine larger sized blocks.

2. In addition to the scaling issue, Segwit also got rid of a bug called transaction malleability where transaction IDs were then prone to alteration and fraudulent transactions. In addition, the Lighting network was as an added layer on top of the bitcoin blockchain to enable smaller transactions to be done quickly and eventually settle on the blockchain when ready.

3. The lighting network i a second layer on top of the bitcoin blockchain. When two parties wish to make transactions they do so “off chain” in the LN. The can make an unlimited number of transactions between each other. Once they are done and ready to settle they would send the final balance between the two of them to the main blockchain network. So the LN is connected to the blockchain network during the final transaction to the blockchain between two parties sent

4. SegWit is not mandatory for people, wallets, and other services, but adoption above 50% and newer wallets are SegWit compatible.

[pascaldeb]

thanks, i am really not use to write, talk in english! that makes that i have to be a little bit creative with my answers!

[lovreez]

1. Increasing the block size from 1mb to 2mb.
2. Transaction malleability, lower fees and support for further solutions (lightning network).
3. Lightning network became a possibility because of Segwit.
4. No, because it was an soft fork. As we know, soft fork enables old protocols to still be valid. However, most of the wallets today are using segwit.

[FlippingDave]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Larger, 2MB Block size
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Mallubility issue where you could change just the sig thus fooling sender to resend and duplicating the transaction
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Need segwits 2nd layer ability for Lightning.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, it’s a soft fork so you can still use old rules too.

[Nick_Carolin]

1. increasing the block size from 1 mB to 2 mB

2. Transaction malleability

3. Segwit allows for the development of second layer protocols. Together they can make millions of transactions per second instead of 7 to 10 per second which was the speed associated with the previous version.

4. No it is an option at the moment and was a soft fork.

[Steve199]

@filip

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

The proposed alternative was to increase the block size.

@filip

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Segwit other than reduce the scaling issue it also improve the security by fixing the transaction malleability issue.

@filip

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

To work as intended the the lightning network needs the fix on malleability transaction that we have thanks to the segwit update.

@filip

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

No, being a softfork update , you are not forced to use it.

[Dylan_Robertson]

1. The proposed alternative was to increase the block size limit rather than adopt a new transaction structure.

2. Segwit was developed to address the transaction malleability problem. Transaction malleability allowed manipulation of input signatures which changed transaction the ID.

3. Transaction malleability was n problem hindering development of second layers systems. Lightning network is a second layer scaling solution. Lightning network would not be possible without the implementation of segwit.

4. No - segwit is opt in.