Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1246

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to implement a larger block size limit. This thing happend and Bitcoin Cash was developed.

  2. Segwit also resolved the transaction malleability.

  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as lighting network.

  4. No, because is a softfork.

1 Like
#1247

That is true :slight_smile: but you mentioned development of a new wallet :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1248

True, that was in response to your question on new wallets not considering old designs…

1 Like
#1249
  1. increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB
  2. Tx Malleabiltiy
  3. when Tx malleability was removed lightening network was implemented
  4. no because it was a soft fork
1 Like
#1250

1.- Increase the block size to 2MB.
2.- Transaction malleability, by taking the signature out of the transaction itself.
3.- Segwit enable a second layer solutions on top of bitcoin such as Ligthing netword, bitcoin smart countracts, schnorr signatures and anonymity.
4.- They are not forced to used since it`s just a feature of bitcoin (soft fork), however adoption is going smoothly.

1 Like
#1251
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The proposed alternative to Segwit was making the block size bigger.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit solved more than just the scaling issue by eliminating transaction malleability. They did this by taking the signature out of the transaction and storing it elsewhere.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit and the Lightning network are connected because Segwit made second layer solution possible.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No one is forced to use Segwit because it was a soft fork.
1 Like
#1252

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing block size.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
TX malleability vulnerability, in which the signature could be altered and yet still valid before the transaction is confirmed. Since the hash is the transaction’s identifier in the blockchain, this means I can effectively change any transaction id to a different id and it will still be valid.

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit, by permitting the signature to be stored outside the block, opened the door to second-layer apps to be built on Bitcoin. Second-layer applications depend on the first-layer to be immutable, so that challenge had to be solved before the BTC ecosystem could extend in this manner. A prominent one of these second-layer apps for BTC is Lightning Network that allows transactions to be processed more rapidly, and settle them at conclusion of transactions(s) on blockchain when both parties are ready.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No because it was a soft (backwards compatible) fork; legacy nodes receive only the base transaction block without the extended block and consider them valid, while segwit blocks receive both the base and extended blocks (up to 4MB in combined size) and can verify them in full.

1 Like
#1253

-A proposed alternative to SegWit was an increase in block size which also lead to a hard fork(eg Bitcoin Cash).
-SegWit solves the transaction malleability issue by removing the signature requirement.
-SegWit supports the second layer solution which is the lightning network.
-No, as this is a soft fork.

1 Like
#1254
  1. Part of the community thought that a useful solution on scalability problem was increase the block size. Even if this simple solution solve only a portion of the problem, due to the fact that some were in contrast with SegWit implementation, the Bitcoin Cash hard fork took place.
  2. The main reason why SegWit update was proposed is that SegWit would solved the problems with malleability transaction. The side effect of take signature out from the transaction data is that transaction weigh much less, enabling to have more transactions into a block of 1MB.
  3. Thanks to the fact that SegWit has solved issue with malleability transactions, any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions are less risky and easier to design. This is the case for the Lighting Network, were more transactions can be managed even off-chain without the risk of being counterfeited.
  4. SegWit was a soft fork that take place in 2017. As soft fork no one was forced to use SegWit, even if the rollout went slowly, following times adoption of the biggest exchange services like Coinbase, Kraken and so on.
1 Like
#1255
  1. Enlarge the block size which is what Bitcoin Cash did.
  2. It allowed a greater number of transactions in each block while still keeping the block size to 1 mB. This enabled only a soft fork to be created. Also the signature was removed from the block which prevented signature maleability.
  3. It enabled the Lightning network, a second layer, to be created.
  4. Since this was a soft fork, users are not forced to use Segwit and older blocks remain unchanged. However hardware wallets have enabled the change and with increased use it will be the standard approach.
1 Like
#1256
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing the transaction block size, but it will result in an Hard Fork, => BCH

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

the malleability issue allowing a transaction to change his Hash without changing the content of it

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

security, segwit allow the use of lightning network, by fixing the malleability issue, using the lightning network is now safe.

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

It is a soft fork, they don’t have to follow, but if they want to keep the protocol running they have to, otherwise they will have to follow a new community hard fork

1 Like
#1257
  1. To increase the block size
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. Made it easier for second-layer solutions to build their products on top of it
  4. Negative ghost rider
1 Like
#1258
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    An increase in the size of blocks was the alternative
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It solved malelability issues as well as separating the transactions signatures from the block size
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    They are both layer 2 solutions which both are enhanced by solving the maleability issue for unconfirmed transactions
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Segwit is an optional softfork
1 Like
#1259

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

  2. Segwit solved the scaling issue by removing the signature from the transaction, therefore also solving the malleability issue by storing the signature data outside the block. this allowed for more transaction within a single block.

  3. Sigwit and the lightning network are connected by supporting second layer protocols.

  4. as of now I believe the answer is no, only 14% of transactions are using the new format, however, it seems that more and more in the near future it will be a great benefit to all who use this new format.

1 Like
#1260

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

the alternative proposal to Segwit was to increase the block size

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It solved the tx malleability bug. before it was possible to change a transaction hash without changing the content of the transaction (just changing the signature)

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
both aim to make Bitcoin more scalable (faster)

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, one can choose to use Segwit. with Segwit it becomes cheaper (less KB space)

1 Like
#1261

The proposed alternative to Segwit, was increasing the block size limit.

Apart from solving the scaling issue, Segwit also solved the issue of transaction malleability. Transaction malleability allowed for the altering of the transaction signature data, which would result in the transaction ID being altered.

The introduction of Segwit allowed for the creation of second layer protocols such as the Lighting network. Segwit enables the Lighting network to take frequent small transactions off the blockchain, and settling them on the blockchain when the users are ready.

People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit. Segwit is supported on most major wallets, but is not mandatory to use. By using Segwit the user is able to reduce the cost of their transactions and increase the speed of their transactions.

1 Like
#1262
  1. To increase the block size to allow more tx
  2. The transaction malleability problem that allowed to change the signature making the block hash change.
  3. By stoping the tx malleability it allowed the creation of second layer solutions like lightning network.
  4. No, since its a soft fork you can chose to not use it and still be compatible.
1 Like
#1263

Actually the old style transaction are still valid on BTC :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1264

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    An alternative solution to Segwit to solve full block issue was to increase the block size.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit solved the transaction malleability, lowered the Tx fees and supported the development of second layer protocols.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit has enabled the development of second layer protocols such as the Lightning network.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, they aren’t. Segwit allows miners, users or wallet developers to decide independently whether they want to adopt segwit or not. It is compatible with the old protocol as well.

1 Like
#1265
  1. Block size increase was the alternative proposed.
  2. Transactions Malleability and lowered fees.
  3. SegWit supports the second layer network which is the lighting network.
  4. No, but more and more wallet are adopting segwit
1 Like