Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1086
  1. Increase the block size a Hard fork
  2. transaction ID malleability
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning
    network.
  4. No because is a Soft Fork it depends of the user.
1 Like
#1087

  1. An alternative to Segwit was to increase block size from 1 to 2 mB.

  2. Besides scaling issue, it solved the transaction malleability problem by moving the signature off the block.

  3. The Segwit supports a second layer (like lightning network) solving the Bitcoin transaction malleability issues. The lightning network provides fast transactions off-chain and is meant for small transactions.

  4. Since is a soft fork, the adoption is not a “must”.

1 Like
#1088
  1. enlarge the block-size, to 2, 3 -10 or more MB - sounds logical at first glance…
  2. problem with TX malleability (TX-ID / signature could be changed - resulting in fraud) Other issue is that it might lead to more centralisation of miners, means: only large miners qho can afford upgrade of equippment, and have easy elecricity-access (Russia, China…) will dominate, and small miners are out.
  3. Lightning is build on the BTC-protocol… thats all I know about…
  4. no, adaption is not forced on anyone, but needs some time that nodes / miners wokring with the BC are willing to accept the Segwit update. Guess by now in 2020 most have accepted. If not, they wanted the Hard Fork to happen to create their new Coins, like BTC-cash, BTC-gold and so forth
1 Like
#1089

  1. The alternative proposed was to increase the block size.

  2. In addition to fitting more transactions into a block, which increases the throughput without increasing the block size, Segwit also stopped the transaction malleability by removing the signatures from the data structure.

  3. Segwit also supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network. The lightning network increases bitcoin’s transaction capacity. This means that it can take frequent, small transactions off-chain. They can then be added to the blockchain when the users are ready.

  4. No, those who did not agree decided to implement a hard fork to create Bitcoin Cash where a larger block size was implemented.

#1090

Do you mean segwit will lead to more centralization?

Its built on top of Bitcoin :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1091

BCH did start of due to non-acceptance of Segwit and willingness to increase the block size by some part of the community. However since Segwit itself was a softfork it is not mandatory to use even on BTC as well. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1092

  1. The proposed alternative to SEGWIT was to increase the block size twice. But it would end up in more centralized bitcoin, bigger weight blocks are harder to move along the network.

  2. Segwit solved the malfunction by changing the key.

3.SegWit changed also allowed the development of second layer protocols, on which the lightning network was built.
4.No-Soft Fork…Older nodes are still present.

1 Like
#1093
  1. Increasing the block size to 2mB.
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. By Segwit making a secound layer, possible. Lightning network needs another layer.
  4. No, it’s a soft fork meaning the previous structure can still be used.
1 Like
#1094

Segwit solved the transaction malleability problem, which meant that you could change the tx identifier by changing the signature data. This was solved by moving the witness or unlocking script out of the transaction (thus the name Segregated Witness) :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1095

Segwit does PREVENT the centralisation, as now the smaller miners can still continue with smaller blocks (signature broadcaster separately to safe space)
Correct?
Thanks for your feedback!
Greetings,
Ursula

1 Like
#1096
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increase the block size which also mean a hardfork.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    TX malleability. Signatures can have different representation formats but still sign the TX. This malleability of a signature means that the TX-ID of a block is no longer unique for the same content. This can lead to a double spend vulnerability. Segwit solves this issue by storing the signatures outside the block.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Through the segregation of the TXs and Signatures it is also possible to transfer additional data outside a block. This allows for second layer solutions on the bitcoin network. Lightning is one example of a second layer.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Segwit was introduced via a softfork. Older Nodes can still operate.
1 Like
#1097
  1. The alternative was to increase the blocksize (e.g. to n x 1 Mbyte)
  2. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
  3. SegWit is that it supports second layer protocols, such as the lightning network with the advantage of prevent from malleability.
  4. No it is not recommended because it is reverse compatible. Currently ca. 40% of all transactions are proceeded with SegWit
1 Like
#1098

Bro, thank you for correcting!

1 Like
#1099

Yes that is correct! Just checking :smiley: Segwit didn’t change anything for the miners in itself :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1100

1 one proposed possibility was increase the size of the block 1 megbyte to ?? (however large it needs to be)
this would not have changed much in the long run it would have maintained the time to process more data between nodes (i.e. more data just in larger forms had to be processed) creating a similar solution with fees that would have also been similar
2 the signatures are 3x larger than the data by taking it out you still have data but less space needed he also fixed the malleability issue before you could change the signature not much but enough for the hash to change id and therefore tsx disappears under another address with the signature you can change but tsx id is still same as well as tsx … you can still find it
3 lightening is a secondary layer that is built over segwit
4 no one is forced to use segwit but platforms like coinbase would benefit from change because they could charge smaller and wait times fees enticing customers to their site so they will implement as they see the benefit

1 Like
#1101

Great answers! Keep up the good work! :smiley:

1 Like
#1102

Did you made a typo? It is very recommended :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1103

I doubt Coinbase would charge smaller fees, but it would save them some money :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
#1104

Please excuse my english … typo… I meant it is not mandatory

Thanks, Maceo

1 Like
#1105

Its no problem if its a typo :slight_smile: I’m just making sure you didn’t meant wrong :wink:

1 Like