Segwit Reading Assignment

[M9605]

1. Increasing the block size to fit more tx’s/block.
2. Malleability of tx’s where anyone could change the signature a little bit and therefore change the hash outcome of the tx. This led to tx’s being safer for the average user.
3. When you solved tx malleability you made each tx more trustworthy and made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design.
4. No it’s not a hard fork so it’s up to each node to choose if they want to include signatures in the tx data structure or store them separately. If they are stored separately then the tx will be a segwit tx because the ‘‘witness data’’ is stored separately (not in the tx) and therefore can’t change the hash of tx if the signature is changed.

[Borucki]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Increasing the block size was an alternative to segwit.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Segwit also solved transaction malability.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit made for the lighting network to be implemented by solving the bug in making transactions signitures seprate for the block so modifying the signitures wouldn’t Change the transaction has.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use segwit?
   No people are no forced to used segwit, but since it is a soft fork there will be no fork in the blockchain so everyone will in turn end up using the upgrade.

[Alko89]

@victoriachua

This gives rise to the availability of transaction malleability in this Segwit upgrade

Segwit prevents malleability since the signature will not affect the TXID.

@victoriachua

They both operate on top/outside of the main blockchain.

Segwit is an onchain solution that made second layer solutions like Lightning safer and easier to implement.

[rsb160]

1. Block Size Increased
2. Solved Tx’s Maliability Issue
3. SegWit made second layer Solution possible
4. No, Old address and Tx can still be used

[Basilios]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
increase block size to 2Mb
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information and storing it outside the base transaction block. With that, signatures and scripts can be changed without affecting the transaction id.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The SegWit changed also allowed development of second layer protocols, on which the lightening network was built
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
no

[Rauchmelder]

1. Increase the block size limit.
2. It also solved the malleability problem.
3. It helped make lightning network possible.
4. No, Segwit was a soft fork.

[victoriachua]

Thank you for the clarification.

[Cindy18]

1.- To increase the block size (Bitcoin Cash implemented this solution)
2.- They solved the malleability issue as well
3.- Segwit allowed the Lightning network to happen, by solving the malleability problem that made unfeasible second layer solution possible on the Bitcoin network in the past.
4.- No, due to it is a soft fork the wallets and other services are not forced to implement it

[dreday86]

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

segwit also solved the transaction malleability while still keeping the bloick at 1mB.

segwit and lighting are connected by segwit fixing the malleability making less risky and easier to design, then making boost bitcoins transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions offfchain only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready. thus paving the way for lightning network.

no people, wallets and other services are not forced to use segwit as not everyone agreed on segwit, it had slow implantation. Out of segwit fixing block size issues along the lines bitcoin cash was formed.

[Michael_26]

1. Larger block storage capacity.

2. Lower transaction fees, made it easier/less risky to design 2nd layer protocols that relied on unconfirmed transactions.

3. Segwit allows for second layer protocols like Lightning network to be built on top of the bitcoin network because of its transaction malleability fix

4. No

[abbateslam]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   To make block size from 1 MB to 2 MB.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Malleability issue with Transaction ID.

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit fixed the malleability issue, which in turn allowed a second layer for lighting network to run on.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No. Can use either. More of a soft fork.

[silka]

1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size. This will create a hard fork like bitcoin cash which decided to increase the block size instead of adopting segwit.

2. Segwit’s initial intention was to fix a bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability. This flaw allowed anyone to change small details that modified the transaction id (and the subsequent hash) but not the content.

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

4. Nobody is forced to implement segwit but due to its advantages like speed, security and less transaction fees more and more services have implemented it.

[Fabrice]

@dreday86

segwit also solved the transaction malleability while still keeping the bloick at 1mB.

A segwit block can have approximately 2MB (theoretically even more) but the signatures are in another datastructure.
old nodes who didn’t implemented the segwit softfork only will get this block without signatures (max 1mb) wich makes it still valid according to their old rules.

[Willcandesign]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Bitcoin Cash, which was a hard fork on the Bitcoin network, chose to implement larger block size limits rather than rely on a new transaction structure.

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Boosted the development of features such as
MAST (which are more complex bitcoin smart contracts)
Schnorr Signatures (which enables more capacity boosts)
TumbleBit (which is an anonymous top-layer network)

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Lightning Network is a second layer protocol built on top of SegWit, and it boosts the bitcoins transaction capacity by taking frequenbtly, small transactions offchain.

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

No they are not, communities split and thus creating hard fork networks such as Bitcoin Cash

Some wallets and exchanges are slowly adapting SegWit, this was in Feb of 2018

[SaltyNumNum]

1. Increasing block size to 2MB
2. A bug which allowed malicious actors to change the signature, thereby changing the hashtag
3. Lightning network could not operate in an environment where the signature could be changed. Segwit paved the way for Lightning network to be a viable layer 2 protocol.
4. No, I checked a chart, and it’s still only being used by 60-65% of nodes. Other services like wallets did not necessarily change, at least not quickly, but could still be used.

[Mohamed_Farah]

1. The proposed alternative to segwit was bch and that was to do a hard fork and increase block size.

2. Segwit solved transaction malleability by storing signature outside the tx information thus a change in signature would not result in a tx id change. This allowed for unconfirmed tx to be safer as there would be avoidance of theft by a recepient claiming a tx doesnt exist as the tx id disappears from the network.

3. Segwit makes layer 2 solutions possible such as lightning network this is because layer 2 solutions rely on unconfirmed tx and tx malleability would make this feature unsafe.

4. No because it ii a soft fork and old tx can still be used. Only 51% of the nodes in the network need to update to have nough hashpower to enforce this tx system

[UncleBen]

1. The proposed alternative was to double the block size from 1MB to 2MB
2. It also solved transaction malleability.
3. The Lighting network is a second layer protocol that is connected to the Bitcoin network (and thus to Segwit) that allows users to create payment channels that are relatively super quick and much cheaper. The Lightning network basically operates outside the main network and is able to do so as a direct result of the removal of the signature from the main block. It allows multiple transactions between two parties but records them as one transaction.
4. No force - it was a soft fork.

[sajede.k]

1. 1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
      expantion of rule set meaning increase in block size.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   by separating the signature, tx malleability would be avoided.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   Segwit would support 2nd layer protocol so lightening would be possible.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   no, since it is a soft fork some can continue with the previous rule.

[sajede.k]

‘The lightning network will further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.’
i cant get the point of this paragraph from reading assignment.
can any body help me please?

[Tompos]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Lightning network

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

Signature is not in the block anymore so bob can’t rip off alice by changing

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Second layer protocol

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

No but recommended