Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1526
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Raising block size and creating a hard fork
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Transaction malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? It made the lightning network possible
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No
1 Like
#1527

block size increase

tx id malleability

segwit made second layer solution on which lightning network is built

no

1 Like
#1528
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

• To make the blocks bigger and create a Hard-Fork i.e. Bitcoin Cash BCH.

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

• Segwit solved the problem with malleability by removing the signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block. This upgrade enabled a greater number of transactions in the Bitcoin block.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

• Segwit enables the second layer protocol to be possible thereby making the Lightening network possible.

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

• No, as there are older nodes that have not been updated.

1 Like
#1529
  1. Blocksize increase which lead to bitcoin cash.
  2. It solved transaction malleability and faster transaction times by removing the signature from the tx block and storing it on the side.
  3. It is building on top of bitcoin to create a 2nd layer protocol. Which increases the transactions speed.
  4. No, because it was a soft fork.
1 Like
#1530

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

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

3.How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit has a 2 layer solution protocol that make it possible

4.Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No , but old TX and old addresses can still be used in soft fork

1 Like
#1531

  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was then implemented hard fork that generated Bitcoin Cash, which increased thee block size beyond 1 mB.

  2. It also fixed the issue with transaction malleability, by taking off the signature ID from the transaction data. Transaction malleability meant that a small change in an incoming transaction signature would have previously led to a change in the whole hash of the transaction ID, bringing forth some security issues as well. Now the signature data is still stored in some greater nodes but not all (which smaller nodes can still trust to query and verify that a specific transaction is correctly signed).

  3. The Lightning network assists with scaling the Bitcoin network by taking some transactions off chain, further boosting the processing time.

  4. No, according to the article people could still use the legacy protocol.

1 Like
#1532

  1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size from 1mB to 2mB.

  2. it also solved the issue of transaction malleability by taking the signatures out of the transaction ID hash function which in turn made transactions more secure.

  3. Segwit allowed second layers to be possible, and the Lightning network is a second layer.

4.People are not forced to use Segwit because it was a soft fork and they can still use the same protocol as before.

1 Like
#1533

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A proposed alternative was to increase the block size which would have lead to a hard fork.
    The full block problem would have been solved temporarily until the new block size had
    reached its limit.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    By remoiving the signature from the transaction data structure Segwit also solved the
    transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit supports the development of second layer solution like Lightning

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, they are not forced to use Segwit. Some have adopted the update some not.

1 Like
#1534

What was a proposed alternative to segwit? Increasing block size

What did segwit solve more than just the scaling issue. Fix a bug in the btc code call malleability .

How is segwit and the lightning network connected. It supports development and its second layer… It boost btc trans capacity segwit made lighting network possible

Are people wallets and other services forced to use segwit

No many wallets have yet to add segwits support, its oprional but its one of the best short term fixes

1 Like
#1535
  1. An alternative was increase the blocks size
  2. SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information.
  3. SegWit allowed the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
  4. No , Segwit is a Soft fork but As more wallets embrace the upgrade, the percentage of transactions that use the SegWit structure will increase.
1 Like
#1536
  1. Increasing the block size
  2. tx malleability
  3. Segwit separated the signature from the tx ID and that allows for second layer protocols such as lightning which depends on unconfirmed tx’s but that is not risky with the signature separated
  4. no
1 Like
#1537

  1. Hard forking for a block size increase like bch.

  2. It solves the transaction malleability issue by removing the signatures from the tx blocks, it separates them which helps lower fees.

  3. Segwit also helps support 2nd layer solutions like lightning network.

  4. Segwit was a soft fork which doesn’t force people, wallets, etc to use, but most have adapted to it.

1 Like
#1538

  1. to increase the cap size with a hard fork in the form of BTC Cash

  2. allowed possibility of second layer protocols

  3. Lightning network is a previously aforementioned second layer protocol. Further related to increasing capacity by taking frequent small tx off chain until users are ready (much like how segwit separates witness info)

  4. Not forced but many big players at the time (2018) were moving to adopt it.

1 Like
#1539

  1. A popular proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size/capacity.

  2. Segwit solved more than just the scaling issues as it lowered transaction fees and it solved transaction malleability by storing the signature outside of the block so it doesn’t affect the hash.

  3. Segwit and the Lightning Network are connected as Segwit makes development of second layer protocols/operations (Lightning Network is a second layer protocol).

  4. People, wallets, and other services are not forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork and nodes may not have updated even though it may be better.

1 Like
#1540
  1. Blocksize to 2MB
  2. Transactions can´t get changed by the receiver anymore because of id malleability
  3. all lightning network is coded to work with segwit actually make it possible
  4. no because it was a softfork
1 Like
#1541

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Answer: A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the size of the blocks so that it could include more transaction storage. However, this would continue to be a problem in the future because the block storage limit would have to continue to increase throughout time in order to allow the network to grow with more usage.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Answer: In addition to the scaling issue, Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability and allowed the ability of second layer protocols to be created on the network.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Answer: Because Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, the Lightning network is built as a second layer solution.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Answer: No, the old protocol can continued to be used because nodes without the Segwit update still exist on the network allowing for compatibility of the old protocol.

1 Like
#1542
  1. Before SegWit increasing the block size was the alternate solution
  2. SegWit was set to solve Bitcoin’s Transaction Malleability problem by removing the signature ('witness information") and storing it outside the block. This also started the new concept “block weight” which is the combined data of the block and witness information capped at 4MB allowing more transactions to process per block without breaking consensus rules.
  3. SegWit allowed the support for second layer protocols like lightning network. Similar to SegWit, Lightning Network also stored transaction data outside of the block further increasing the transaction capacity.
  4. No, not everyone has to because it was a soft fork.
1 Like
#1543

You can actually generate old style transactions on a segwit node as well :slight_smile:

#1544

1: An increase in block size from 1mB to 2mB. This in fact happened and this is now called Bitcoin Cash.
2: The transaction malleability issue.
3: Segwit enables layer two solutions such as the lightening network.
4: No. It was a softfork.

1 Like
#1545

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

To upgrade the block size limit from 1 MB to 2 MB.

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

Segwit enabled the signatures of the transaction to exist outside the transaction data structure. This reduce the size of the transaction and enables more transactions to be stored in a block in a block chain. This resolves the scaling issue to a certain extent.

By having signatures outside the transaction data structure, we are able to change the signature of the transaction without impacting the integrity of the transaction and thus affecting the whole network. This gives rise to the availability of transaction malleability in this Segwit upgrade, however, it also presents potential security issues.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

They both operate on top/outside of the main blockchain. They both remove some information to be saved on the main blockchain. This enables a more efficient use of main block chain memory size and helps to reduce transaction fees.

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

No they are not, It is a soft fork. Adoption of the Segwit upgrade is organic in nature, people/companies/wallets will make the adjustments if they see the need and benefits for it in the long term.

1 Like