Segwit Reading Assignment

[bsmccall]

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

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

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? If Segwit was not implemented there would not be second layer solutions on top of Bitcoin.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No they are not forced to use Segwit, but many are updating.

[Tomaso69s]

1- The alternative was to implement larger block sizes to allow more transactions into the blocks

2- By separating the signature from the block they solve the scaling problem and the transaction malleability bug

3- Because by adopting the SegWit protocol, the malleability bug was fixed and it allowed the development of other protocols such as the Lightning Network, MAST and Schnorr Signatures

4- No, but they are invigorated to so by increase adoption of the upgrade and the advantages it brings such as lower transaction fees and improvement in security

[Hackerman]

1. Increase in block size.
2. Problems with transactions malleability.
3. Implementing Segwit enabled building Lightning network by resolving problems with transactions malleability (Lightning network relies on unconfirmed transactions)
4. No, many are working on it.

[petr]

1. Hard fork, block size increase (Bitcoin cash).

2. Stopped transaction malleability - segwit removed signature from transaction (signature is not a part of tx hash anymore) that prevents the transaction ID from being manipulated.

3. No Segwit - no LN. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocol such as LN.

4. No, segwit allows you voluntary decide whether or not to use it.

[GarryY]

The alternative to segwit was a 2MB block size
Segwit also solved the transaction malleability problem and made tx fees smaller
Segwit supports second layer solutions
No it is a soft fork and therefore the old rule set still applies

[realsloth]

1. Increasing block size to 2mB
2. Transaction malleability
3. Transaction malleability implemented through Segwit makes features that rely on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. Lightning comes on top of Bitcoin as a second layer and takes another bunch of transactions (small&repetitive) off the chain and only settles them in one transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain, so that allows more transactions per block.
4. No but they implemented it over time. If they did not want it then Bitcoin Cash would be an alternative so Segwit. But that is no longer the same blockchain.

[ajphminer]

1. The alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size limit to 2MB
2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability problem
3. Segwit allows for 2nd layer protocols such as Lightning. This is possible because it allows such protocols to use unconfirmed transactions without sacrificing security.
4. No, people, wallets, and other services are not forced to use Segwit but eventually they will have no choice specially if they want to take advantage of the additional protocols.

[homiejohn]

1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the block size limit to more than 1 MB.
2. Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue by removing the digital signature from the block and setting it aside on a different layer. This freed up block space as a side effect, solving both issues.
3. Segwit created the second layer protocol, which was essential for the lighting network and other second layer protocol.
4. No, however eventually the majority of these applications will run with Segwit.

[p2ray]

What was proposed alternative to Segwit?

• The solution proposed was apparently simpler: increasing block size from 1mb to 2mb, that solution was not adopted because in long term would have not been that useful, moreover probably have would caused an hard fork.

What did Segwit solve more tha just the scaling issue?

• Segwit fixed the transaction malleability problem, where TXid’s got altered.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• Lighting network is a second layer on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Target of lighting network is to make little transactions outside the blockchain and has shares one of the target of the segwit: making possible to have more transactions in less time. Anyway lighting network has been made possible only through segwit, otherwise the signature system would have been too much heavy.

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

• No they are not, but till the trend of segwit users increases every wallet will have an interest to upgrade to segwit.

[Sander_Heikens]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
4mb blocks

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

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Because of the malleability fix second layer protocols like Lightning are now possible.

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

[Lucky_Mkosana]

1. Changing the block size from 1MB to 2MB.

2. Tx malleability made network more secure and increased adoption.

3. SegWit supports development of 2nd layer protocols like the lightning network. They both boost BTC tx capacity by taking frequent tx and keep fees low.

4. No, they can still be used as a soft fork. As adoption increases more wallets will adopt the 2nd layer protocol that’s supported by SegWit.

[PsiMach]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
To increase the block size which would have caused a hard fork

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
it also solved the Transaction Malleability issue, would ensure fees would remain low and would support second layer protocols

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
lightning network is a second layer protocol that would allow people to open payment channels to transact multiple times that do not record in the block chain thus without fees

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it is a soft fork so legacy transactions can still be created. More and more wallets are adding SegWit support

[Simo]

1. Implementing larger block size rather than limit rather than relying on a new transaction structure was one proposed alternative to Segwit, which lead to Bitcoin Cash.

2. Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue.

3. • Segwit’s fix to malleability allowed for the development of second layer protocols like the lightning network.

4. Segwit is a soft fork, and was rolled out gradually with slow adoption. Being a soft fork it is backwards compatible allowing for old services to still function.

[Dasboot]

1. Increased blocksize (Also added security in other ways, the two features were bundled up in Segwit)

2. Security, tampering with transaction was possible, at least in theory

3. Segwit ended up being a prerequisite for Lightning

4. No, its a soft fork. Hard to find exact data on percentage, but around a year ago roughly 50% of nodes were running Segwit - should be higher now.

[Fabrice]

@kyliezz

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…)

We have a course about the Lightning network

[Fabrice]

@Matgas

• takes small information off chain and provides them when the users are ready @filip - What does that mean “when the users are ready” ?
• Not sure actually @filip People in the section are answering that this is “soft fork”, but I do not think so, because bitcoin cash was born out of it. For me it sounds like a hard fork… Pls advice!

Segwit was a soft fork wich is backwards compatible. So users aren’t forced to use segwit, only if they want to. Because you can still use old addresses and older nodes still accept all blocks. (but non segwit nodes don’t get the signatures wich make it practically a light client)
So segwit was a soft fork, But a part of the community did a hardfork as well, because they wanted bigger blocksize. This hardfork splitted away from Bitcoin and bcash was born.
(these blocks are not valid on bitcoin, so it is a new blockchain with the same history of bitcoin till the blockheight where the fork happened)

[Fabrice]

@Nev

• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  It created ability for faster transactions.

Segwit enabled The Lightning network because it needs to rely on unconfirmed transactions. Without the tx malleability fix the transaction ID could change.

@Nev

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Yes and no. To stay on bitcoin they use segwit and rely on signature to be stored elsewhere, or have changed to bitcoin cash

NO, because it’s a soft fork and it’s backwards compatible. Old nodes still accept all blocks (but without the signatures) and users can still use old address types. Segwit native addresses start with bc1q…
If you use segwit addresses to receive and send bitcoin, you will pay less fee! It has so many advantages to use segwit and still, not all wallets upgraded and can’t read segwit addresses.

Bitcoin Cash was a hard Fork and has a different blockchain. Only a certain amount of history of the bitcoin blockchain is basically copied till the blockheight when the fork happened

[Fabrice]

@Nusterik

also allowed development of MAST which enables complex bitcoin smart contacts

Yes, but most importantly, it fixed the Tx malleability issue. Where you could re-broadcast the same transaction twice, but with a slight modification to the signatures. Wich results in a different transaction ID. Only 1 of them can be confirmed. This could be used to mislead people to pay twice. Because the tx ID they check, will never get confirmed

[Fabrice]

@Cryptole

Segwit introduced block weight. As per the article, this is a mashup of the block size with and without the signature data, and is capped at 4MB. I’m still not 100% clear on this and will do more research.

If you want more research about segwit, you should check this out:

https://learnmeabitcoin.com/faq/segregated-witness

[kongpoul]

1: To increase the blocksize from curretn 1 mB to 2 mB or even more.
2: TX malleability by storing the sign outside the TX block. Also a possibility to add a sceond layer
3: Thorugh second layer protocol
4: No not forced and many wallets etc are continusly adding the upgrade