Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#985
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increased size of blocks to 2mB (this Hard Fork lead to creation of Bitcoin Cash).

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

Issue with Transaction Malleability.

  • 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?

because of decentralized nature of ecosystem, changes are implemented slowly through the network. SegWit have big advantages, at the time of writing this post SegWit Adoption Hits 66%.

1 Like
#986
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increasing the block size to 2mB, which would have created a fork. This did later happen as not all miners liked segwit and bitcoin cash was created.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue which was a problem that enabled tiny changes to the signature to change the hash and thus the transaction ID, which causes confusion. The changes did not change transaction content, just the ID. This prevented the development of smart contracts and second layer protocols. Segwit removed the signature from the tx for seperate storage, so changing signature doesn’t impact tx ID
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? Both intruded segwit at about the same time 2017 and lightning is a second layer protocol that can be built on bitcoin.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No, adoption was slow and many nodes or miners preferred the 2mB block size and thus became part of the fork called bitcoin cash.
1 Like
#987
  1. Bitcoin Cash developed out of a dissatisfaction with Segwit. They felt that the changes just kicked the scalability problem down the road. So they created a fork off Bitcoin that increased the blocksize.
  2. It solved the problem of Malleability by removing the signature from the block that is been hashed.
  3. Through an algorithm interacting with the blockchain script it enables users to trade currencies off the Bitcoin blockchain. It allows quick payments at better transaction fees. It helps with the scalability problem as more and more users use Bitcoin.
  4. No but as the adoption rate reaches the 95% it would be better to do so.
1 Like
#988
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A proposed alternative to SegWit was an increase in block size
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    fixed transaction malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as Lightning network
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No
1 Like
#989
  1. Increase the block size (resulting in a hard fork into Bitcoin Cash)
  2. Transaction Maleability and separating the signature data off of the main blockchain.
  3. Segwit removed signature data from the blocks thus fixing TX maleability, this make Lightning network possible.
  4. No, it was a soft fork, so all segwit transactions are still picked up by legacy nodes.
1 Like
#990

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1 MB to 2 MB. However, this was not seen as a true solution but only a temporary one. With the increasing popularity and adoption of bitcoin, it would not be very long before the new 2 MB block size limit would be reached, placing the bitcoin network in the same situation all over again.

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

Other than the scaling issue, Segwit introduced a fix for the transaction malleability problem. The transaction malleability problem would have to be fixed before any additional technologies (second-layer protocols, e.g., lighting netowrk, MAST, Schnorr signatures) could be built on top of bitcoin.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

See my answer to the above question. Segwith’s transaction malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

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

No, people, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit. Segwit’s design retained the 1 MB block size limit, maintaining its compatibility with the previous protocol and avoiding any need of a hard fork.

1 Like
#991

  1. Increase size of the block from 1mb to 2mb.

  2. It has solved TX malleability issue.

  3. SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols. Lightning is an example of it.

  4. No. It was a softfork. But more and more services are adopting segwit.

1 Like
#992

  1. Increased block size

  2. Transaction Malleability, securing unconfirmed transactions

  3. by making unconfirmed transactions safer, smaller and more frequent payments could be taken offline for later use with less risk.

  4. compliance is required, adoption is voluntary.

1 Like
#993

  1. Proposed alternative to Segwit was increased block size limit to 2mB. This became the hardfork and new currency Bitcoin Cash.

  2. Segwit also solved the bug known as transaction malleability, whereby a Tx receiving user could make small adjustments to the Tx sender’s signature. This created a new TxID hash, but the rest of the tx info was the same. This bug would render the TxID not visible to the sender. The receiver could then claim the Tx was not accepted by the network and request the sender to resend a new Tx. This bug resulted in fraud/theft issues.

  3. Lighning network is a second layer protocol that relies on Segwit by being able to process transactions that are not yet confirmed on the BTC network. Segwit’s removal of the Tx malleability problem creates the environment necessary for Lightning to leverage Segwit improvements and operate securely.

  4. No one is forced to use Segwit. There are options to use it for it’s advantages, or not (BCH).

1 Like
#994

  1. Increasing the amount of data a block can store.

  2. Transaction malleability, the changing of script/signatures so that the TXID changes, but the transfer of funds remains the same.

  3. Segwit allowed for second layer protocols to take place. Lightning processes transactions before they are confirmed?

  4. Nobody is forced to do anything. This is why the blockchain was split (hard fork) and Bitcoin Cash was adopted, where instead of utilizing Segwit, the block size was increased.

1 Like
#995

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing the block size and not adjusting the transaction structure.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction Malleability
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
By solving the transaction malleability issue, the lightning network can be built on the 2nd layer allowing faster transaction processing.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
If you want to continue transacting on the bitcoin network, you must adopt segwit, it is a soft fork. However if you do not want to there are other cyprocurriencies that have made changes without adopting segwit.

1 Like
#996
  1. One proposed alternative to Segwit was to just increase the block size from 1mB to 2mB. This was viewed by many as a temporary solution. Eventually it would need to be increased again.
  2. In addition to scaling. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue, where changing a signature was possible and could be exploited to create a completely different Tx ID.
  3. Segwit allows for a second layer solution such as the Lightning Network to accept many more transactions quickly by removing signature data from the transaction, making it possible for more transactions to be sent per block, by removing this to an area outside the block.
  4. As Segwit was a soft fork, it is not required, as older transactions and nodes are still valid.
1 Like
#997
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A proposed alternative to Segwit was a block size increase.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit solved the transaction malleability issue removing the user signature from the block enabling a signature change to be made without changing the transaction’s hash.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Solving the transaction malleability problem allows the development of second layer solutions. The Lightning Network is a second-layer solution enabling an increase in Bitcoin transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    People, wallets, and other services are not forced to use Segwit as it is still compatible with old protocol implemented as a soft fork.
1 Like
#998

1.) Increase the block size
2.) The ability to alter the signature and put it back in the mempool so it could be added to the block as a different transaction while the original would be discarded and the sender would have no way to show they sent it.
3.) Really not covered well in the material. However, I recall a comment about layers for smart contracts. Other than that I would have to google this or be directed to the video and minute it was discussed in the lesson.

4.) Yes the rule set was decreased so they will be forced to use SegWit if they want to continue to be used as a node, or a wallet, or other service.

#999
  • The alternative to SegWit was to increase the block size (a hardfork) which did happen and created BCH.
  • SegWit solved a bug in the protocol that allowed users to alter the transaction id in a block by changing data to witness or signature data of that block. SegWit removes this data from the block, and stores it out of the block therefor the TX id is only made up the transaction data now and the Segwit can store more transactions.
  • SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
  • Segwit is a softfork and is backwards compatible with what is termed as legacy addresses. No one is forced to implement it but it has become widely adopted.
#1000
  1. The proposed alternative was to increase the block size so more transactions could be stored in a block.
  2. Segwit also solved transaction malleability so that the transaction ID could no longer be altered after transmission of transactions.
  3. The malleability fix allowed for less risk and greater ease of design of second layer protocols like lightning which relied on unconfirmed transactions
  4. Segwit is not a forced protocol.
#1001

  1. Increasing block size to 2 MB

  2. By keeping the signature data out of the TX and so not including it in the hash that forms the tx id they solved the tx malleability problem.

  3. Segwit update that solved the tx malleability problem made it easier to create a second layer protocols that was relied on unconfirmed tx

4.Not at all, some nodes keep all data together.

#1002

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

As i see it, the proposed alternative to segwit was to increase the block size, keeping the same transaction structure while upping the limits of the block size.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

As I’ve come to learn, segwit also fixed the issue of transaction malleability which the problem of anyone being able to make small changes in the transaction ID which in turn changed the Hash while still keeping the content in the block. which also helped with enabling more complex features like second layer protocols and smart contracts.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

From my understanding, segwit and the Lightning network are connected because segwit closing insecurities and increasing scalability opened the door to second layer protocols use as the Lightning network. Also made relying on unconfirmed transactions less risky. The Lightning network should boost bitcoins transaction capacity by keeping small frequent transactions off chain until the’re ready.

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

From my further reading and understanding, you don’t have to upgrade to the new segwit protocols, the only difference is, the waiting for the miner to validate your transaction rather then the network doing it which seems like it would also add more time for your transaction to be processed.

#1003

  • block size increase

  • transaction malleability bug, SegWit changed the way the data is stored in the transaction. Also it allows second layer solutions such as lightning network safely be developed on Bitcoin blockchain

  • SegWit makes a significant change in the way transaction data is stored, making it safer to complete unconfirmed small off-chain transactions in Lightning network, which will also potentially be a permanent solution for scalability

  • No, however it is a preferred update because it allows cheaper and safer transactions

PS: Bitcoin core>Bitcoin cash
Nice try, Roger Ver :smile:

#1004
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A: To increase the maximum blocksize from 1mb to 2 mb
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    A: Stopped Transaction Malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    A: The Lightning Network is a second layer protocol and will be easier to implement using Segwit as prevention of transaction malleability.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    A: No. Many wallets are embracing the upgrade to Segwit.