Segwit Reading Assignment

[hubitutl]

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

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Fixing the transaction malleability bug in bitcoin’s code which restricted the possibility to develop more complex features. Further to process a greater throughput in that a new property called block weight limit that is 4 x bigger than the block size limit was introduced.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Without integrating the feature the network would be insecure.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, but it is used by the majority.

[Niieells]

• What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  Makes the blocks bigger
• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  The transacction malleability and room for a fast second layer.
• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  Segwit makes second layer possible
• Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  No. Old transactions can be used as well

[Adrian_P]

1. Increasing the block size to 2MB

2. It solved the issue of transaction malleability by removing the signature to off block

3. SegWit enables second layer solutions.

4. It is a soft fork and not everyone has to update it.

[JustMichael]

1. Implementing a larger block size limit.
2. Transaction malleability.
3. SegWit provided for an additional layer on top of Bitcoin which acts as fix for both transaction costs and speeds.
4. No, it is up to each entity.

[jcampos]

1. Reduce the size of the block to allow more transactions.
2. Fix transaction malleability, because will remove remove the sign from the block when it was validated it.
3. Because the block will be small and the propagation time will better.
4. No, wallets can use soft fork.

[Cryptole]

Thank you Fabrice! I appreciate your assistance.

[Arthimis_Vergult]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

• Increased block size.

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

• Segwit also solved transaction ID malleability. This was a bug where one could change the signature data so the the hash of the transaction ID would change. This would cause confusion since the content of the transaction didn’t change, meaning the transaction still went through, but one couldn’t find the transaction in the blockchain explorerd. Segwit fixed this by not including the signature in the hashing computation to create a transaction ID.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• Segwit made Lightning network possible by storing the signature off the main chain. The Lightning network will help make unconfirmed and small transactions between people who have a node on that network more reliable.

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

• No, because it is a soft fork.

[Yaank]

1. Increasing the block size like BCH did.

2. Transaction malleability.

3. SegWit made lightning possible.

4. No, because its a softfork. But they will likely adopt it.

[CryptoTradingTrucker]

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)An increase in block size and a possible hard fork.

2)Transaction malleability.

3)Because it supports the development of second layer protocols.

4)No, but the advantages to do so are great.

[jimx]

1.What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
–Increasing block size > 1mb
2.What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
–Transaction malleability
3.How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
–Segwit implementation allowed 2nd layer protocols that relied on unconfirmed txns less risky and easier to design.
4.Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
–No

[dpopp1]

1. To increase the block size.
2. Transaction malleability issues making less risk for unconfirmed transactions.
3. Seg-wit works on top of the lightening network.
4. No one is forced to use the segwit transaction protocol but as time goes on & the transactions increase the need for this protocol will increase & b shown to be a better protocol.

[Rich96145]

1. Increase the block size to 2mb - Hard Fork

2. Transaction malleability. By removing the signature from the input/TX and keeping them separated in other larger nodes.

3. The Segwit update allows second layer protocols to be developed on them. Lightening Network

4. No

[travis_bazile]

1. People wanted to increase the block size rather than removing the signature
2. Segwit also solved the need to fork often, lower transaction fees on the network & supports a 2nd layer on top of its solution.
3. Segwit protocol allows for a second layer to also have its own set of rules. This is how the Lighting netowrk is connected to the segwit.
   4.No people are not mandated to use segwit & its compatible with the previous protocol

[Nityam_Jigyasu]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increase size of Blocks.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Issue of transaction malleability.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? It made second layer solution possible which is the lightning network ?
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No, old addresses are still accessible. Its a soft fork and same protocol applies before the update.

[cryp2]

@filip

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?
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. increase the limit of block size

2. fixed the transaction malleability, by separating the signature in the transaction list.

3. Second layer protocol which prevent tx malleability and for faster transaction

4. No, it’s optional because soft forks are compatible with other protocol

[ambous]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

• to increase the the block size from 1MB to 2MB

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

• it solved the transaction malleability issue.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• Lighting network is a second layer protocol which boosts Bitcoin’s transaction capacity.

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

• Segwit was a soft fork, therefore users are not forced to use it.

[hoolie]

1. increased blocksize

2.transaction malleability

3. Segwit makes second layer possible

4. No

[Halim_Xhaferi]

1. A proposed alternative to SegWit was an increase in block size which also lead to a hard fork -> Bitcoin Cash.
2. SegWit solves the Tx malleability and lowers fees along with supporting second layer solutions.
3. SegWit supports second layer solutions, like the Lightning Network
4. No, it is a soft fork, however, wallets are adding SegWit support.

[Leanne]

1. Increase the block size.
2. Transaction malleability, supports the development of second layer protocols and lower fees.
3. The lightning network is a second layer protocol built on top of Segwit.
4. No, it’s a soft fork but as of Jan 2020 two-thirds of all bitcoin transactions now use Segwit.

[Alex_B]

1. To increase the block size and do a hard fork
2. It also made network more secure by solving network malleability. Transaction id was now kept outside of the main block
3. Segwit supports second layer solutions, which made existence of Lightning network possible
4. It’s an option, because it’s a soft fork but once most of the network adapts it, it will be the only way to going through a hard fork like bitcoin cash for example.