Segwit Reading Assignment

[Emmett]

1. To just make the blocks bigger
2. It fixed the ‘Transaction Malleability’ vulnerability allowing malicious activity i.e. i.e. chaing the scriptsig in order to generate a new trx is while keeping the trx outputs the same - i.e. double spending
3. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
4. No, its a soft fork

[CryptoEagle]

Thank you @Mauro!

[York]

got it

[BryanSC]

1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1mb to 2mb.

2. Segwit solved the flaw of Transaction Malleability, which allowed anyone to modify the transaction ID and subsequently the Hash. SegWit solved this by removing the signature data and storing it outside of the transaction block.

3. Segwit supports the development of Lightning network by fixing transaction malleability. It allows for features that rely on unconfirmed transaction less risky and easier to design.

4. Segwit is a soft fork. Other services and wallets can still use the old protocol.

[CryptoPadawani]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing the blocksize limit.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The transaction malleability issue. Meaning: it solved the possibility of altering the transaction signature without changing the tx content, thus the possibility of scamming people in paying you twice.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Having the sigs. seperated from the transactions made it possible to support second layer protocols like the Lightning Network which enables small frequent tx’s being send faster.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, people can use BTC cash instead, a hard fork that chose the alternative route by increasing the blocksize limit.

[Rava06]

1.) Proposed alternative was increased block size to 4MB

2.) Segwit also fixed transaction malleability and network security.

3.) Segwit solved issues with second layer solutions.

4.) Nobody is forced (people, wallets, services) as it’s compatible with the old protocol…soft fork…

[whip23]

1.) To inrease the size of each block from 1mB to 2mB.
2.) Securing transactions by taking the signature off chain thus making it impossible to change the transaction Id.
3.) The Lightning network is a second layer solution that runs because of segwit.
4.) No, but will be the only way foward in the future.

[N8ture]

1.Just increasing the block size limit.

2.SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block.

3.They are connected because the malleability fix, without the malleability problem it is possible to have features that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
The lightning network allows frequent small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.

4.They are connected because the malleability fix, without the malleability problem it is possible to have features that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
The lightning network allows frequent small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.

[Aaron_Searight]

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 transaction malleability and lower fees along with supporting a second layer solution.
3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
4. No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft fork).

[wfells]

1. Rasing the block size to 2MB

2. Transaction Malliabilty

3. It allowed alos for building on top. Lighting network

4. No many dont have it on their platform for users full throttle.

[Trace2]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

• Increasing the Block size limit, making it larger than 1 MB.

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

• Storing the Signature information (which by itself is a large data), outside the base transaction block. This enables to increase greater number of transactions within 1 MB block, without changing the previous protocol.
• Solved Malleability problem, by separating the Signature information from the transaction data, secured even if the script of the signature changes, the transaction remains unaffected.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• On the second layer protocol.

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

• No one is forced to update the protocol, it is compatible to the previous protocol, avoids Hard Fork.

[zinovsky]

1- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Pros was to make the block size larger than 1mB

2- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
SegWit’s fixed a bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability, where anyone can change small details that modify the transaction ID.

3- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit boosted the development of Lightning Network
4- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, since it was a soft fork

[Mauro]

No worries, keep up the great work.

[Mauro]

@wtraveller

3:Segwit runs on a second layer on top of lightning

Segwit is a soft fork for bitcoin. This means that the update affects the main chain. Lightning network is a second layer scalability solution on the bitcoin network. It would’t have been possible without the segwit support.

[Mauro]

@Emmett

2. It fixed the ‘Transaction Malleability’ vulnerability allowing malicious activity i.e. i.e. chaing the scriptsig in order to generate a new trx is while keeping the trx outputs the same - i.e. double spending

Malleability messes with the ability to distinguish transactions by transaction ID. You cannot double
spend. "Transaction malleability is an attack that lets a person change a Bitcoin transaction 's unique ID before confirmation on the Bitcoin network."

Here is a great answer from one of our students:

@CryptoPadawani

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The transaction malleability issue. Meaning: it solved the possibility of altering the transaction signature without changing the tx content, thus the possibility of scamming people in paying you twice.

You probably only confused double spending with the ability to scam someone to pay you twice.

[Mauro]

No problem. Keep up the great work.

[Mauro]

@CryptoPadawani

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, people can use BTC cash instead, a hard fork that chose the alternative route by increasing the blocksize limit.

They can also use the bitcoin network without the segwit. We call them legacy transactions.

[Mauro]

@frabosce

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   In short term no, but it is a soft fork so with time when the 51% of the network has it than the others must adopt Segwit.

You don’t have to accept a soft fork if more than 51% of nodes accepted it. Soft fork is a contraction of the rules. When we have over 50% of nodes that accepted a soft fork, we can say that the update was “successful”.

[Mauro]

@N8ture

4.They are connected because the malleability fix, without the malleability problem it is possible to have features that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
The lightning network allows frequent small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.

You answered the 3rd question twice. The fourth question was:

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

[Chris78]

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

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

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   It supports the development of the lightning network as second layer protocol.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No they are not. Not every wallet or service has the update integrated, as it is a soft fork.