Block size increase which would lead to a hard fork
SegWit stopped tx mallleabillity when segregating the Signature from the tx block
SegWit supported the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network
No, but there is high incentive to upgrade and use SegWit
The proposed alternative was to increase the blocks size.
Segwit solved the problem of transactions malleability, blocks size limit.
SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
Nobody is forced to use Segwit, yet many wallets chose to adopt this solution.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
To Increase the block size from 1mB to 2mB
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Malleability, security increased.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Thru second layer protocol
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No-Soft Fork…Older nodes are still present.
A proposed alternative was to increase the block size limit. This would be a hard fork update and did in fact occur, resulting in Bitcoin Cash.
Segwit solved more than just the scaling issue by fixing the transaction malleability flaw. By removing the signature data from the transaction and storing it separately, signatures and scripts can be altered without changing the transaction ID, whereas before, the transaction ID and subsequent hash would be changed by altering any of this data (the contents of the transaction would not be altered though). This is not good if you want to add second layer protocols, smart contracts, etc.
As mentioned above, the Segwit update made second layer protocols possible, this means the Lightning Network can performed tasks such as taking small, frequent txs off chain until the user is ready to settle them on the blockchain. This is achieved because the signature data can be altered without affecting the transaction data and therefore leaving the transaction id hash unaffected.
No one is forced to use segwit and some still do not. The adoption is exponentialthough, the more that use segwit, the more will have to update if they want to stay in the game.
1.- The proposed alternative was to increase the block size, which indeed occurred, leadind to a hard fork (Bitcoin cash)
2.- Fixed the transaction malleabillity issue, removing the signature data from the transaction and storing apart, signatures could changed without changing the transaction id.
3.- Segwit update gives the opportunity to develop a second layer protocols giving the space to lightning network to performed task such as frecuent small txs off chain until the user was able to settle in the blockchain.
This is possible because the signature data can be altered without affecting the transaction data.
4.- No, it’s a soft fork, so old nodes could still works
Another option that was considered was to increase the block size, which most see as a temporary fix.
Segwit also solved the TX malleability issue, by moving signatures off of the tx and stored separately.
Segwit made 2nd layer protocols such as lightning network possible by creating a nearly risk free environment when transactions are not able to be confirmed quickly.
No, all older protocols of btc blockchain are compatible with segwit.
implement a larger block size to contain more transaction
it prevent the transaction malleability (the possibility to change the id of the transaction but not the content
Segwit made possible the second layer protocols such as Lightning Network
No
Increase the block size as with BCash
Fix Tx Malleability
Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
4 No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft fork).
The proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the sizes of the blocks. This became a fork that is today known as Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
Segwit solved the issue of transaction sizes by making them smaller and not including the signature data. This can be referred to as transaction malleability. This also paved way for other layer solutions on top of the bitcoin blockchain.
Segwit and the lightning network are connected by being a second layer to the bitcoin blockchain. There will be transactions off-chain, resulting in accessibility, small fees and allows micro-transactions to occur.
Like with the bitcoin protocol, nobody is forced to use it. Some services have implemented Segwit while others have not. It depends on the person, wallet or other service to see whether or not they want to implement it and allow others to use it. It is a soft fork, not a hard fork.
Bitcoin Cash
Transaction malleability by removing the signature information
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as lightning network
No. Segwit is still compatible with the previous protocol
1 the proposed alternative to Segwit was to make block size larger than 1mb.
2. It prevents transaction malleability/security and opens the door to Lightning.
3 Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols not only lightning but also MAST, Schnorr signatures and TumbleBit.
4 Adooption takes time and the later can still be used in conjunction with the new protocol.
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
It was increasing the block size.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It solved the malleability issue.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the Lightning network.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No. It’s a soft fork.
The proposed alternative was to increase the block size to 2Mb.
Transaction ID malleability was no longer possible because segwit segregated the signature from private key and by doing so reduced the data within the block for each transaction. This meant you could in theory change the signature without affecting the hash of transaction.
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as lightning network.
No, nobody is forced to use segwit because it is a soft fork, which means only the majority of the network needs to implement it.
Alternative to SegWit was to increase the blocksize to resolve the scaling issue.
Segwit not only fixed blockchain’s scaling issue but also transactions’ malleability. By removing the signature information and outside the transaction base, signature and script can be changed without affecting the transaction ID.
Segwit allows to have second layer protocol such as lighting network in order to boost its transaction capacity. Lighting network removes smalltwransaction off the chain to boost the capacity.
No, but many wallets are adapting to include Segwit function.