Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1346

  1. To increase the size of the block.

  2. It was to fix a bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability.

  3. SegWit supports the development of 2nd layer protocols such as the lightening network.

  4. Not everyone is using SegWit but more people are gradually embracing the upgrade.

1 Like
#1347
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

Answers:-

  1. To increase block size from 1 MB to 2 MB in a case of bitcoin cash.
  2. It also solved transaction malleability because people can not make slight change to the signature as signature is stored somewhere else.
  3. Segwit helps to support second layer protocol like lightning network.
  4. No as it is optional and it is still compatible with old protocol.
1 Like
#1348

1- it was to increase the blocksize
2- the malleability so if someone change something in the signature the blockhash wont change
3- Segwit make a second layer protocol possible such as the Lightning network
4- no they are not forced.

1 Like
#1349

  1. The alternative was to increase block size.

  2. It helped prevent the TX Malleability problem where changing the TX ID could fool someone that they didn’t complete a transaction

  3. Segwit enabled added layers to the Bitcoin network which allows for the lightning network to be implemented.

  4. No, it was a soft fork, however its growth in popularity will eventually pressure other nodes to fully adopt it going forward if adoption of SegWit reaches a majority.

1 Like
#1350

1 An alternative proposal to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1mB to 2 mB. This would have resulted in a hard fork, and also was considered only a short term solution so ultimately was rejected.
2 As well as solving the scaling issue Segwit also resolved the transaction malleability problem by removing the TX signatures off the blockchain leaving room for more transactions in each block.
3 The development of Segwit allowed 2nd layer protocols such as the Lightning network to become possible, as they process transactions off the block chain and rely on the Segwit upgrade’s transaction malleability fix.
4 The community is not obligated to use Segwit, however if it was not adopted universally there is a danger it will not be accepted and the project could fail. At time of writing the adoption rate is a bit below 50%, which shows a good increase in the last couple of years.

1 Like
#1351

Segwit has been accepted by the nodes and is functional. The problem with adoption is wallets supporting it :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#1352
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the blocksize from 1MB to 2MB.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit also solved the problem of transaction malleability, i.e. the ability to change the signature of transaction and hence the transaction ID.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Without the implementation of Seqwit, off-chain solutions like the Lightning network would not be possible.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, they are not forced to use Segwit, but because it makes economic sense to adopt the the change most wallets and services are now Seqwit compliant.
1 Like
#1353

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    One proposal was to increase the size of blocks from 1 to 2 mb/s , but was only a temporary solution because the same problem will appear when 2 mb/s is not enough and so on , but not accepted

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit gives the possibilities for building second layer protocol like LIGHTNING NETWORK

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Lightning network become possible after segwit upgratprotocol

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    They are not forced because is a SOFT FORK

1 Like
#1354

  1. Increase block size limit

  2. Transaction Malleability

  3. SegWit enables Lighting Network by making second layer solutions.

  4. No. It’s a soft fork, previous type transactions are still valid.

1 Like
#1355
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increased block size which would cause a hardfork
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    it also solved the malleability issue which also allowed for 2nd layer solutions to be built
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    its connected because due to segwit the transaction malleability problem has been solved thus allowing LN to be safer to operate with unconfirmed transacions
  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, because its a soft fork they only update if they want to, but the more people who adopt it the more it would free the blocks and lower the fees
1 Like
#1356
  1. The alternative to Segwit is the increased block size of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork.
  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability issue.
  3. Segwit helped make second layer solutions like Lighting network possible.
  4. People, wallets, and services are not required to use Segwit.
1 Like
#1357
  1. Increasing the block size, but that would create several difficulties in a hard fork adoption( eg. need for more hardware,storage, memory, longer propagation time and transaction malleability)
  2. It fixed the transaction malleability issue because the signature isn’t part of the TX ID anymore so even if the sig changes the TX ID stays the same.
  3. It allowed the development of second layer protocols like lightning network.
  4. No, it was a soft fork so it was still compatible with the protocol before.
1 Like
#1358
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    • Doubling the block size limit
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    • TRX Malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    • Segwit makes “2nd layer protocols” possible. Lightning Network is such an upddate
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    • Not currently, but as Segwit adoption increases, it may become foolish to continue resisting it.
1 Like
#1359

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the block size

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? a flaw in bitcoin protocol that allowed users to tamper with transaction id. Segwit fixes Transaction Malleability.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Lightning network requires a transaction malleability
    fix such as SegWit to perform

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No it is slowly being adopted. but one of the perks of SegWit is lower fees and the enabling of the Lightning network which is becoming more important to bitcoin users

1 Like
#1360
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increasing the block size to 2mb.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Transaction Malleability, wait time and fees.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? The lightning network takes smaller transactions off chain, settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No, it is a soft fork.
1 Like
#1361

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    tampering transaction due to hash change

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    upgrade to segwit allowed btc network to have faster transactions by allowing a layer 2 network i.e LN

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, but would be better if upgraded

2 Likes
#1362

I most definitely am! It’s on the list :star_struck:

1 Like
#1363

Initially, one of the proposed alternatives to the addition of Segwit to the Bitcoin protocol, was merely to increase the block size limit in the consensus rules. However, many members of the community felt that this simplified solution would only delay the original problems of slow confirmations and increased fees. Another feared side effect of merely increasing the block size limit in the rules is that it would cause increased costs to miners in the manner of more expensive hardware, faster memory and internet speeds, and would effectively limit the ability to Mine bitcoin to the few that could afford it, thus reducing decentralization.
Prior to the implementation of the concept of Segwit to the Bitcoin protocol, there was a debate ocurring in the Bitcoin development community. As early as 2015, a bug in the original Bitcoin code was discovered whereby an alteration in the signature of the private key used to sign a transaction would not actually change the hash output of the block. The signatures were stored inside the block, but the private key data was not an actual factor in generating the hash which ultimately provides the security of the blockchain transactions and creates the immutability of Bitcoin transactions. This was not originally though to be a major issue, mostly because the transaction data itself remained intact. The problem, however, is that the private key signature WAS used in the hashing of Transaction ID. A small change in the signature Data WOULD result in a change in the transaction ID. This created a problem which is exacerbated by the latency issue in the confirmation of Blocks over such a wide network, insofar as that one way to PROVE a transaction has been sent is to provide to the receiver of the new UTXO the transaction ID. If the reciever is aware of this bug, he or she can alter the signature data after the fact, and then declare to the sender that this transaction ID does not exist on the blockchain. This issue is referred to as Transaction Malleability. The implementation of Segwit eliminated the issue of Transaction malleability by storing the private key sinatures outside the block and thus creating more data space for additional transactions. Segwit also made possible further develpment of the ecosystem in the form of second layer protocols and the ability to create smart contracts on top of the Bitcoin network. One such innovation that was newly made possible wasthe lightning network, which takes small recurring transactions and executes them offchain, only then submitting those at a later time, thus speeding up the transaction times of those lightning network transaction, while also unburdening the Bitcoin network.
Members of the community who did not agree with the implementation of segwit, chose instead to hard fork a new currency called Bitcoin Cash,which instead of implementing Segwit,chose instead to increase the block size limit, mostly because they flet the removal of the private key signatures from the TX inputs within the blocks were necessary to retain the original integrity and security of the original Bitcoin protocol.
People, wallets, and services were not forced to implement Segwit, and in fact adoption of the new rules was quite slow, Many miners did not like the reduced speed they faced in mining new blocks, as it reduced mining efficiency. Segwit was a soft fork, while the BCH protocol change with the doubling of the block size limit was a hard fork.

3 Likes
#1364

1.To implement a larger block size, like with Bitcoin Cash.

2.The malleability issue, by putting the signatures apart of the main 1MB block.

3.Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, like the lightning network. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.

  1. No, they can choose not, but Segwit is getting more and more traction.
1 Like
#1365

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Implementing a hard fork in order to increase the maximum block size.

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

It also solved the problem with transaction malleability by keeping
the signatures separate from the transaction.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit was a fix implemented by Lightning network in order to solve
the issue with transaction malleability.

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

No, but not adopting it will result in an increased transaction fee
since the transaction takes up more block space.

1 Like