Segwit Reading Assignment

[Arjo]

1. To increase the block size.

2. Segwit fixed the transaction malleability problem and transaction signature can be changed that will not affect the transaction ID means that you can alter the signature and get a compleatly new trasaction hash.

3. Lightning network is a second layer protocol which builds on segwit.

4. No, wallets and other service can still use the old protocol.

[Anon1478]

1. Proposed alternative was a hardfork to allow for a larger block size

2. It also helped to fix the malleability bug

3. Without SegWit, the Lightning Network could not exist due to security/verifiability issues

4. No, they are not forced. But it seems that most do?

[Cryptoscoot]

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

2.) Segwit solved the Malleability issue by removing the signatures from the TX ID of the block which in turn fixed both the block size and Malleability issues.

3.) Segwit made it possible for the network to support 2nd layer Protocols like the Lightning Network by making unconfirmed transactions less risky.

4.) No, this was a soft fork and some nodes in the network are still working on getting everything updated to the newer version.

[Gevan.G2]

1- increase the block size

2- transaction malleability

3- Segwit made 2nd layer possible, lightning network is one

4- No

[Alko89]

@nielvosloo

Segwit was a fix implemented by Lightning network

Lightning network is a separate protocol built on top of Bitcoin. Segwit made, by solving the malleability issue, made implementing these second layer solutions easier and safer

[Alko89]

@Anon1478

But it seems that most do?

Not sure what you mean? They are cheaper, so they are recommended, but not mandatory

[Wade]

1. raising block size limit.
2. also solved Tx malleability issue.
3. Segwit enabled more complex protocols like lightning network to be possible by fixing the malleability problem.
4. No, the update is not forced.

[blockchainuser]

1. Increase in block size

2. It solved the issue of transaction melability and made it possible to build on top with 2nd layer protocols.

3. Lightning network ‘is’ the second layer protocol made possible by segwit.

4. Some significant players in the crypto space have or are planning to implement the update. It’s at their discretion. It’s optional. A soft fork.

[sighko05]

@filip

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

The proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the block size. This would have created a hard fork which is not completely democratic.

@filip

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

SegWit also solved the issue of transaction malleability which in turn would not allow for the implementation of second-layer protocols and smart contracts.

@filip

3. How are Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

The lightning network is a second-layer protocol that required fixing of transaction malleability. Fixing transaction malleability made relying on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to develop for. The Lightning network improved transaction capacity by making frequent/small transactions off-chain.

@filip

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

Back when the rollout first started, people, wallets, and other services were not forced to use SegWit, but adoption had been slow. However, with bigger name companies like Ledger, Trezor, and other wallets beginning to add support, more and more people are using SegWit.

[JeremyH]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

• The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the blocksize

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

• Segwit also solved the Transaction Malleability issue

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• Segwit supported the development of second layer protocols such as the lightening network which together will allow Bitcoin to process millions (or more) transactions per second

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

• No. People, wallets, and other services are not forced to use segwit

https://web.archive.org/web/20190914192613/https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/segwit/

[Mechman]

1. Alternative proposal was to increase the block size limits of 1 MB.
2. Transaction Malleability was also solved, that is no more a change is possible in the contents of an unconfirmed transaction.
3. Segwit solved the tx malleability issue, and made it possible to design further features that rely on unconfirmed tx info, some of which are in Lightning network.
4. No they are not forced to use segwit as it is a softfork. However, whichever node that doesn’t use segwit will now see things on the blockchain that cannot be confirmed by him.

[LTL]

1. To increase the block size to 2mB.
2. It solved the TX malleability bug.
3. Made second layer solutions possible
4. No.

[write2tapas]

1. Increase block size.

2. It fixed the bitcoin malleability issue.

3. Segwit fixed the issue of bitcoin malleability which reduces the risk in developng second layer of protocols like Lightning network on top of main bitcoin protocol.

4. No. some people did not agree to it and started making blocks with higher size. Bitcoin cash is an example of fork created due to this.

[horhinjo]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Increasing the size of the block.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Transaction malleability.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit makes second layer protocols possible, such as Lightning network.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, since it is soft fork, old transactions can be used.

[Alko89]

@write2tapas

No. some people did not agree to it and started making blocks with higher size. Bitcoin cash is an example of fork created due to this.

True, but you can also still use old style transactions on Bitcoin as well

[JamesA]

@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?

1. increasing the block size was a proposed alternative to segwit

2. Segwit solved tx malleability.

3. segwit allows for layer two protocols like the lightling network to function

4. no

[Lilian]

1. Proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the block size from 1MB

2. Apart from the scaling issue SegWit solved malleability issue

3. They both make the the transaction issue faster by boosting transaction capacity by taking frequent small transactions off chain, only settling on the bockchain when users are ready.

4. No, but it’s to their advantage and some wallets Ledger have already added SegWit support.

[coin999]

1. To increase the maximum allowed blocksize (like in BCH)

2. It solved the problem of transaction malleability, which means that someone could change the scriptsig somewhat and therefore changing the tx hash. In segwit all signatures are stored outside the transaction structure and therefore the tx hash becomes independent of the scriptsig.

3. Since segwit removes the problem of transaction malleability, unconfirmed transactions can be used more securely such as in side chains like lightning.

4. No

[TudorGadea]

1. Increasing the blocksize to store more transactions.
2. it also solves transaction malleability.
3. segwit supports second layer solutions being built on top.
4. not necessarily as it is a soft fork.

[Ishoboy]

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

2. It solved the issue of transaction malleability.

3. Segwit and Lightning network are connected,
   since Segwit separates the witness data which fixed the transaction malleability issue,
   which also makes the second layer solution like the Lightning network becomes possible.

4. No they were not forced to use Segwit, Segwit was a soft fork, Segwit update was compatible with the previous protocol.