Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1506
  1. To increase increase the block size
  2. The malleability problem of someone changing the signature, but not the transactions content
  3. Both aim to improve scalability
  4. No
#1507

While that is true, the Lightning network is a second layer solution that was made safer and easier to implement using Segwit that is an on chain solution :slight_smile:

#1508

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    An increase in block size that also lead to a hard fork, which became Bitcoin Cash.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    The transaction malleability and lower fees along with support for a second layer solution.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit supports the second layer solution which is the lightning network.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No beause it is still compatible with old protocol.

1 Like
#1509

  1. Increasing the block size.

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

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

  4. No because it was a soft fork.

1 Like
#1510
  1. The proposed alternative to SegWit was to increase the block size limit to 2MB. This alternative was implemented into the development of Bitcoin Cash, a fork off the Bitcoin network.

2 SegWit solved a transaction malleability issue in which a transaction recipient was able to change the received transaction’s ID by altering the signature. The recipient could then exploit this and claim to the original sender that the transaction was never received, requesting for it to be sent again.

  1. SegWit also enabled development of 2nd layer protocols such as the Lightning Network. Because the protocol depends on handling a large amount of small unconfirmed transactions off the chain, the malleability fix added the security to make the project possible.

  2. Segwit is optional to adopt as the upgrade is compatible with the previous protocol and avoids the need for a hard fork.

1 Like
#1511

  1. Alternative was increasing the block size. Basically Bitcoin cash.

  2. Segway solved the transaction malleability problem where some one can alter the signature resulting in a different transaction ID. With signatures removed from the block, altering the signatures will not result in a new transaction ID.

  3. Segwit allowed for 2nd layer solution such as Lightning network to happen. By fixing txn malleability, it fixes a security issue where off chain txn are more secure.

  4. Segwit is optional as it is a soft fork which is compatible with existing protocol.

1 Like
#1512

  1. A proposed alternative to SegWit was an increase to the allowed block size, which was what brought about the fork into Bitcoin Cash.

  2. A side benefit was that it solved the problem of transaction malleability, which enabled second-layer protocols.

  3. SegWit enabled second-later protocols, of which the Lightning Network is one.

  4. People and wallets aren’t forced to use SegWit, but more and more are implementing it.

1 Like
#1513
  1. An alternative to segwit was to simply increase the size of each block. This is what lead to the implementation of bitcoin cash which decided to increases block transaction size
  2. Segwit was originally designed to fix the transaction malleability issue which prevented the implementation o f second layer protocols. By removing the signatures of the transactions for the block segwit not only freed up space to include more transaction, it also fixed the transaction malleability issue.
  3. The lightning network is a second layer protocol which could only be implemented because segwit fixed the transaction malleability issue
  4. No people, wallets and services are not forced to use Segwit, and that was the main interest to design it this way, to avoid a hard fork
1 Like
#1514

  1. A proposed alternative to segwit was increasing the Block size to 2mb. This caused a hard fork which created Bitcoin Cash eventually.

  2. The way that Segwit solved more than just the scaling issues, was that it removed witness or signature data from the actual block, which in turn solved the problem of Transaction malleability. Changing a signature would no longer effect the transaction ID.

3.The way that segwit and lightning network are connected is because segwit allowed for the development of lightning as a 2nd layer solution. The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky. Lightning relied on unconfirmed transactions so the malleability threat was a huge problem for its development

  1. People, wallets, and other services are not forced to use Segwit, but the more that utilize it, the better it is for the network. No one is forced to do the update though. Old transactions and addresses still work.
1 Like
#1515
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? [Andy] Increasing the block size
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? [Andy] It also fixed the transaction malleability problem.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? [Andy] Both are solutions to make bitcoin network process more transaction, reduce fee and waiting time.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? [Andy] No. This is a soft fork.
1 Like
#1516

A proposed alternative to segwit was increasing the block size limit from 1 mB to 2 mB.

On top of the scaling issue, segwit eliminated the possibility for transaction malleability, or altering the signatures on transactions to change their transaction ID hash, which can lead to all sorts of dishonesty.

Segwit and the lightning network are connected because through segwit removing signatures, it allowed for the room of second-layer protocols such as the lightning network.

Nobody is forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork update.

1 Like
#1517

  1. Increasing the size of blocks

  2. it resolved the issue of tx malleability and let avoid hardfork

3.Lightening network is a second protocol on BTC, which together with Segwit can process millions tx per second.

  1. No, the old transactions are still being used until old nodes are in the network
1 Like
#1518

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing Blocksize.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction malleability, and allowed for further layer 2 solutions.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    SegWit allowed for further layer 2 solutions.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No at current time people can chose what type of wallet they wish to create.

1 Like
#1519
  1. Developers wanted to increases the size of block initially.
  2. With the removal of the signatures the side benefits is more data can fit inside each block increases transaction with changing the 1mb size structure.
  3. Segwits makes 2nd layer protocol possible, which activates lightning network which offloads smaller transaction and deploys them when users are ready.
  4. No they are forced but some wallet and services are implementing Segwits throughout their network. older transaction still exist.
1 Like
#1520

  1. The other popular alternative solution tot Segwit was to increase the block size limit.

  2. Segwit’s initial purpose was to solve the transaction malleability problem, in which altering the signature would change the transaction ID. This was a problem because anyone could change the signature, which would alter transaction ID, making it appear that the transaction had not been sent.

  3. Segwit and the Lightning Network are both scalability solutions, but Segwit makes the lightning network (and other Layer 2 solutions) less risky and easier to design. The lightning network proposes to take small payment transactions off-chain (and therefore unconfirmed on the blockchain) and move them back on chain at more opportune times. By fixing the malleability problem with Segwit, the risks of implementing the lightning network were heavily reduced.

  4. Segwit is a soft fork and therefore still compatible with the previous protocol, so no one is forced to use Segwit, but it be beneficial for everyone to adopt it.

2 Likes
#1521
  1. increse blocksize
  2. blocksizeand transaction malleability
  3. segwit enables upgrades with lightning networks
  4. no
1 Like
#1522

Lightning is an independent network built on top of the Bitcoin network, while Segwit is an on chain solution. Segwit did made implementing second layer solutions like the Lightning network more easy and safe :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1523

Thanx for straightening it out :slight_smile:

#1524

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was increasing the overall block size and creating a hard fork. This happened and created Bitcoin Cash.

  2. Segwit solved a bug in the system called malleability, which allowed anyone to change small details that modified the transaction id.

  3. Segwit fixed the malleability bug, which allowed it to be built upon. The lightning network is a second layer protocol that increases Bitcoins transaction capacity by taking frequent small transactions off-chain.

  4. Not everyone is forced to use Segwit. The block size did not change and there was no hard fork, so individuals and services can choose whether or not to use Segwit.

2 Likes
#1525
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

The main proposed alternative was to increase the block size from the original 1MB to 2MB.

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

Segwit also solved the issue of Tx malleability which led to people tricking others into sending more bitcoin then they thought they were sending.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

With the segwit update to the Bitcoin protocol, the lightning network is able to be a second layer to the bitcoin layer that allows for more complicated procedures than simple transactions- the lightning netowrk can do things like smart contracts, and move small bitcoin transactions to happen offchain.

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

No they are not forced to use it. Wallets and services like coinbase have been slow to modify their code so that it can work optimally with segwit. Even without updating their codebase for segwit, they can still interact with the Bitcoin blockchain.

1 Like