Segwit Reading Assignment

[bigez]

1. Increasing the block size
2. It also solved the malleability issue which allowed people to change details that would modify the transaction id
3. Thanks to segwit proposed second layer solutions such as the lightning network can be used
4. No, it was a soft fork but many wallets already use it and some are working on implementing it

[jachinto_w]

1. to increase block size to 4MB but this created hard fork
2. Segwit increased number of transactions in block, decreased time and decreased fees
3. by the second layer of protocol
4. no. there was split in the bitcoin community and some ad doped increased block size those creating hard fork with split chain to Bitcoin cash

[Alko89]

@claudiorox

Where the blocks can fit up to 8 MB

@jachinto_w

block size to 4MB

I don’t know BCH so I’m not sure which of these is correct

[Alko89]

@jachinto_w

Segwit increased number of transactions in block, decreased time and decreased fees

The time between blocks didn’t increase, just how many TXs can be stored in one block, makes the throughput a bit faster as well.

@jachinto_w

no. there was split in the bitcoin community and some ad doped increased block size those creating hard fork with split chain to Bitcoin cash

Segwit update was a soft fork on Bitcoin which means old transactions and addresses are still valid on the blockchain. People were not forced to upgrade but are incouraged to do so

[Sarah]

1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was an upgrade to increase the block size to 2mb.
2. Transactions malleability
3. Without the adoption of Segwit on the bitcoin network the TX on the lightning network would not be as secure to be used for larger transactions.
4. No.

[Cryptojuice]

1. An increase in block size

2. Transaction malleability

3. Segwit allows second layer protocols. Lightning network is an example

4. No it is backwards compatible with the old protocol

[Hakim_Craddock]

@filip

• What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  Larger 2mb block sizes, which ultimately lead to the hardfork for BCH
• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  Malleability problem where signatures could be changed, allowing for a new tx ID on essentially the same transaction
• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  They are both second layer solutions
• Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
  No, the orginal BTC blockchain without the second layer solution will still function as intended, slower, but functional

…

[STrismosin]

1. Bitcoin cash, which uses a larger block size.

2. Segwit paved the way for smart contracts and other protocols to be attached to crytpocurrencies.

3. Removing the signature allowed for the lightning protocol to be attached. To keep it simple, lightning allows for parties to establish a two-way payment channel outside of the chain. When they decide to close this two-way payment channel then the remaining balances of each party are recorded and added to the blockchain as a single transaction.

4. Currenty no one is forced to use Segwit. Even though it is popular, its adoption continues to move at a slow pace.

[Alko89]

They are both second layer solutions

Not true, Segwit is an onchain update to Bitcoin and enables second layer solutions like Lightning

[Alko89]

@STrismosin

Segwit paved the way for smart contracts

Segwit fixed the transaction malleability exploit, no smart contracts are currently possible on Bitcoin. But you can program transactions in a limited way using Script

[visualcarm]

1.- Block size to be increased.
2.- The issue with the malleability of the transactions. With Segwit you can change the signature and it won’t affect the hash of the TX ID.
3.- By removing the need of every transaction to have a signature, Lightning network can have multiple transactions offchain and later on add them to the blockchain.
4.- They are not forced to use Segwit, but if everyone use Segwit, it will reduce the congestion on the network, thus reducing the TX fees.

[Brenton]

1. A proposed alternative to Segwit in BTC was increasing the block size limit.

2. Segwit also solves transaction malleability and the development of second layer protocols.

3. The Lightning network is a second layer protocol on BTC made possible because of Segwit.

4. No, Segwit is a soft fork.

[mikekai]

1. To merely increase the max block size of 1mB to 2mB.

2. It solved the Tx malleability issue were someone could alter the signature of the input within the block and change the TX ID after being sent the transaction therefore tricking the sender into believing that they have not received it since their original TX ID did not show up on the block chain and having them send again. By removing the signatures from the block the TX ID can not change and even if the signature is tampered with it won’t affect the transactions.

3. By establishing Segwit it creates a more secure and reliable platform for applications to be built on. Meaning data is more certain and usable for apps like Lightning Network to be used off chain and brought back.

4. They are not forced to use it but a lot of the major providers of wallets have adopted it.

[dividale]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? To increase the block size
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? It also solved the malleability issue of the transaction ID and a the lightening network on a second layer off the blockchain yet remains connected.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? By implementation of segwit allowed for a second layer to the blockchain and use of the lightening network.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? Doesn’t sound like it. There seems to be a gradual implementation and adoption according to the article.

[GeoffSwan]

Segwit Reading Assignment.
1.The alternative to segwitt is to increase the amount of information per block in terms of mB
2.Segwitt solved the transaction maliability problem.
3.Segwitt supports lightning network as a second layer protocol, also supports mast and schnorr
4.People and wallets are not forced to adopt segwitt but by not doing so will increase the incidence of soft forking.

[Alko89]

@GeoffSwan

increase the incidence of soft forking.

Softforks are backwards compatible, but using segwit does decrease the transaction size so its recommended

[Mauro]

@CocoaCrypto

Wow! OK, very interesting use case!
Thank you for the explanation!

@MEC

Thanks for your response, that was definitely one of my least confident answers. I understand now, thanks for the explanation.

I am glad I could help you understand it better. I am very passionate about this field.

[LucianIonescu]

1. The alternative to SegWit was increasing the block size to be bigger than 1MB.

2. Allow more transactions per each Bitcoin Block, solve the Malleability issue , and keep low transaction fees.

3. The lightning network is a second layer protocol built on top of the core Bitcoin protocol, that helps reduce the block size on the blockchain, by allowing multiple smaller transactions to be made with low fees

4. No one is forced to use Segwit, it is a soft fork on the Bitcoin protocol.

[Gss147]

@filip

• 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?

*The proposed alternate to Segwit was increasing the block size, which lead to a hard fork and the creation of bitcoin cash.
*Segwit solved transaction malleability by taking signatures out of the block which allowed for expansion of 2nd layer protocols and smart contracts.
*The lightning Network is a 2nd layer protocol that allows for Bitcoin transactions to be performed faster by taking small transactions temporarily off-chain.
*According to the article, wallets are adapting Segwit in varying degrees, but the benefits of adaption suggest that it will be the consensus over time.

[dbeelow0323]

1. a. move size up to 2mg
   b. Hard fork
2. Malleability. It helps to downgrade need to change all the hash of the transactions in the chain. Keep current structure solid enough.
3. Segwit now allows another layer on top of the it. Lightcoin is another layer on top.
4. No. Only if they adopt it into their networks. MAST - smart contracts, Schnorr signatures, TumbleBit.com .