Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#663
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

A proposed alternative to SegWit was an increase in block size which also lead to a hard fork.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

SegWit solves Transaction Malleability, thereby enabling the Lightning Network, an overlay network of micropayment channels, hypothetically resolving the scaling problem by enabling virtually unlimited numbers of instant, low-fee transactions to occur.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit and the Lightning network are connected by being a two layer solution ontop of Bitcoin.

  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Nobody it’s forced to use it as it is a soft forke, so they are not forced to update, but the useage is growing every day.
    Is recommend that users use a Segwit Bitcoin wallet as that will essentially save them more on transaction fees than a non Segwit wallet will.
1 Like
#664

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Also solved Transaction Malleability problem, making the network more secure against fraud among participants.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit eliminated the Transaction Malleability problem and therefore made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and less complicated to design. The Lightning network is such a feature/second layer solution.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, it’s a soft fork. Participants of the network can still use the network without Segwit.

1 Like
#665
  1. To increase the size of the block more than 1MB.
  2. The malleability of transactions.
  3. Development of second layer protocols such as the lightening network.
  4. No they are not, Bitcoin Cash is an alternative with a larger block size different from Segwits transaction structure.
1 Like
#666

1- The alternative to SegWit is to increase block size.
2- Other than Scaling, SegWit addressed Malleability. Removing the “Witness” or signature information and storing it outside the block, has removed the possibility of scam/attack on transactions by changing the Signature Information.
3- SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols… In other words, SegWit made the Lightning network possible.
4- No. it s a Soft Fork. It is compatible with the previous protocol, so using it is an option while remaining on the same Blockchain.
Resistance to SegWit has caused the chosen course of a Hard Fork and development of Bitcoin Cash (parallel but separate fork of the Blockchain).

1 Like
#667
  1. By increasing block size limit but this would not solve the problem in the long run.
  2. Segwit solve issue with the malleability.
  3. By development of the second layer protocol - the lighting network.
  4. No, but its only a matter of time before they do so.
1 Like
#668
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Another proposed alternative to the bitcoin scaling problem was to increase block size. A hard fork was implemented which becamse Bitcoin Cash.

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

By removing the signature from the transaction data, Segwite also solved transaction malleability. Changed could still be made to the signature but it would now not change the Transaction ID.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit brought an important security upgrade by solving transaction malleability which made second layer solutions like Lighting network practical.

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

Adopting Segwit is not forced and because it was a soft fork, segwit transactions are still compatible with the original protocol.

1 Like
#669

  1. To double the block size from 1mB to 2 mB. This is what was done with Bitcoin Cash.

  2. A software bug whereby someone could change a transaction ID by changing the signature.

  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as lightening.

  4. No because it is a soft fork.

1 Like
#670

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. A larger block size- > 1MB
  2. Transaction malleability.
  3. Segwit made the lightning network 2nd layer protocol possible.
  4. No- its backward compatible.
1 Like
#671

1) What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Bitcoin Cash chose to implement a larger Block Size Limit and forked off the BTC network.

2) What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Originally Segwit was created to fix the issue of Transaction Malleability. Not only did it solve that problem, Segwit also supports the development of second layer protocols like the Lightning Network, more complex BTC smart contracts, MAST, Schnorr signatures and TumbleBit (but I’m not quite sure what they are at this point).

3) How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
“The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.” This has made it possible for the lightning network to increase BTC’s transaction capacity.

4) Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, Bitcoin Cash came about as a result of resistance to Segwit. You can watch adherents to both camps battle it out daily on Twitter by following Roger Ver.

1 Like
#672
  1. Increase block size
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. Segwit makes second layer systems possible
  4. No
1 Like
#673
  1. Proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase block size. Segwit2x would combine Segwit with increased block size.
    Schnorr signatures which would decrease signature space.
    Lightning network which is a 2nd layer protocol that runs on top of bitcoin, opening up channels of fast microtransactions that only settle on the bitcoin network when the channel participants are ready
  2. SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block. With that, signatures and scripts can be changed without affecting the transaction id.

A side benefit that is without the signature information, the transactions weigh much less. This means that more can fit in a block, and bitcoin can process a greater throughput without changing the block size.

SegWit introduced a new concept called “block weight.” This is a mashup of the block size with and without the signature data, and is capped at 4MB, while the block size limit for the base transactions remains at 1MB. This means that the SegWit upgrade is compatible with the previous protocol, and avoids the need for a hard fork.
3. The Lightning Network is a “Layer 2” payment protocol that operates on top of a blockchain like Bitcoin. It enables fast transactions among participating nodes and has been touted as a solution to the Bitcoin scalability problem. Lightning Network required a transaction malleability fix in the Layer 1 blockchain, by Segregated Witness.
4. Since Segwit is a softfork (backward-compatible upgrade) no one has to use segwit.only 35-40% of transactions use Segwit.

1 Like
#674
  1. increasing the block size
  2. transaction malleability was disables
  3. The malleability fix made the development of features that relied on unconfirmed transactions possible
  4. No, it wasn’t a hard fork
1 Like
#675

Answer 1:
Increasing the block size limit.

Answer 2:
Transaction malleability.

Answer 3:
Transaction malleability hindered second layer solutions that relied on unconfirmed transactions.

Answer 4:
No, old nodes see segwit blocks as valid.

1 Like
#676
  1. To increase the block size.
  2. It fixed transaction malleability.
  3. Lighting network has a better, more secure filed to work on. It greatlly benefits from Segwit.
  4. No this is a personal decision to have it.
1 Like
#677
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    to increase the block size to 2MB and increasing the confirmation time
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Without signature information, the transaction weighs much less
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Lightning Network is a second layer
  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    no its a option
1 Like
#678

Awesome, I enjoyed reading this :ok_hand:

#679

But even on bitcoin, not al nodes need to upgrade. But non segwit nodes in Bitcoin, don’t get the signatures, so the physical size is still not more than 1MB. So the soft fork is backwards compatible. While segwit blocks can physically be more than 1MB

3 Likes
#680

1- adjustment of the blocksize to 2mb
2- ability to build layer 2 solutions with more ease, transaction malleability
3- lightning network is a layer 2 solution meaning its made easier by segwit implementation
4- No because transactions will still go through the block chain seeing as it was soft fork

#681

Thanks i appreciate that.
what are you up to in this course?

1 Like
#682

Q1: An alternative proposal to Segwit was simply to change a consensus rule allowing the increase in block sizing from 1mb to 2mb. This would have resulted in a hardfork.

Q2: Seqwit solved the pre-exisiting transaction mallebility issue which offered the receiver of a transaction the chance to alter the sender signature while the TX waited in the Mempool. Thereby altering the TXID. But because the TX had already been verified this means the TX would still go through but with no record of the senders TXID. Thus resulting in the sender having to send another payment. By removing the sender signature from the TX and storing that separately removed this issue.

Q3: Segwit offers second layer chains to be built on top of the original blockchain. Lightning network is a micro payment layer on top of BTC & LTC which offers greater speed and reduces the cost of TX.

Q4: Nobody is forced to use Segwit as it is a softfork so the chain can accommodate both sets of TX’s

1 Like