- Block size limit increase.
- Segwit also solved the tx malleability issue, and made it easier to implement/deploy second layer functionality such as the lightning network.
- Segwit was integral to deployment of the lightning network.
- As Segwit was a soft work, nobody was forced to use this new transaction structure, and it took a while for the new functionality to be even offered to participants by wallets and services.
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing block size. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It solved the issue of transaction malleability. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit allows for 2nd layer solutions making them less risky and easier to design. Lightning allows for off chain transactions and possibility of settling them later. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No one is forced to use Segwit, this was a soft fork. At the moment of the article (February 2018) 17% of transactions were using the segwit format. By June 2018 this went to 40% and is still around that percentage today.
- To increase block size to 2MB
- The transaction malleability of removing the witness signature outside the transaction block.
- The concept of building on top. Segwit supports the development of second-layer protocols such as the Lightning Network.
- No
- Some wanted to increase the block size in order to allow 2mb per block .
2.In addition to the block size issue, transaction malability issue was also addressed.
3.Lightning Network take many transactions off the blockchain and only settles when user are ready.
- No , Segwit is a soft fork and not required in blockchain protocol.
1- The proposed alternative to Segwit was increase block size from 1mB to 2mB then possibly even larger blocks in future
2-Before Segwit the transaction ID could be changed by unlocking the code of the TX (ie. the digital signature. This solved transaction ID malleability. Segwit also supports development to SECOND LAYER protocols
3-Segwit allowed the development of second layer protocols such as the LIGHTNING NETWORK.It made unconfirmed txs less risky.
4-No, a soft fork does not force all to use
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
To increase the size of the Block to 2MB. The maximum block size in the main protocol is 1MB, which restricts the number of transactions bitcoin can process to approximately 7 per second. This was going to limit bitcoin’s potential growth, and prevent it from becoming a usable high-volume payment system.
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information (otherwise known as the “witness” information) and storing it outside the base transaction block. With that, signatures and scripts can be changed without affecting the transaction id. Without the signature information, the transactions weigh much less. This means that more can fit in a block, and bitcoin can process a greater throughput without changing the block size. Also the fees are reduced.
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The lightning Network is a second layer solution running on top of the Bitcoin Blockchain. 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. Fundamentally segwit made second layer solution possible.
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No,( it was a softfork) but if you have a wallet which is only legacy and it doesn’t support Segwit, you need to find a wallet that supports segwit. One way to know if the segwit support is with ones wallet is that the legacy addresses start with a 1 verses segwit which start with a 3.
-
Increasing the block size from 1mb to 2mb.
-
It enabled to get more transactions in a 1mb block by decreasing the transactions and removing the signatures from the transaction making it more secure.
-
It made second layer solutions possible.
-
No, as it was a soft fork.
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Hard fork- increase block size. - What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Kept fees low, allowed TX to be added in reasonable time, removed TX ID and storing it outside the base transaction block. - How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Another big step forward made possible by SegWit is that it supports 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.
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 read - Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
SegWit hasn’t been fully adopted by all Bitcoin network participants because it isn’t mandatory, but also due to different incentives between users in the ecosystem.
-
block size increased
-
allows for easier deployment
-
segwit made Lightning possible
-
some not all are adopting segwit. it was a soft fork
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
- Increase the maximum block size
-
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
- Malleability
-
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
- Segwit allowed second layer solutions such as the Lightning network, MAST, Schnoor signatures and TumbleBit.
- Segwit processes the transaction Id’s separate from the transaction information. This has two benefits.
- It essentially increases the max block size limit and
- It allows for more transactions per block.
In a legacy block some 60% of the block size was taken by the ID information. By moving the transaction ID information outside the block the malleability issue was solved, the number of transactions per second was increased, the max block size was increased to 4 MB, second layer solutions became possible as transactions are less likely to have bee.
-
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
- No. This was a soft fork and since the block of transaction data still meets the 1 MB size limit, non upgraded nodes are still able to process the transaction.
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Proposed alternative was to increase the block size
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It fixed a bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability which allowed anyone to change small details (TX signatures) that modified the transaction id but not the content.
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Transaction malleability fix made features that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky, what enabled development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, Segwit is a softfork and its implementation is node developers choice. Currently majority of bitcoin transactions is made between wallets that support Segwit.
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
An initial proposed alternative to Segwit was simply increasing each block’s size – from 1 mb to 2 mb. However, this would have only temporarily solved the scaling issue as once the 2mb limitation would have been reached, the problem would have resurfaced, requiring yet another fork.
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Apart from the scaling issue, Segwit solved the transaction malleability flaw in the original code; a wallet would be able change the witness data in a sender’s transaction before the transaction was confirmed, without changing the transaction itself. This gave rise to the potential of the double spend scenario.
Segwit also made transactions lighter so that more could fit into each new block produced. Consequently, transaction fees became cheaper, which upset the mining community.
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
The lightening network enables very small payments (micropayments) to be made in a system of opening up a single direct payment channel between two wallets. For example, a payment channel that makes seven daily payments from one wallet to another and then closes the channel after the final transaction would not need to broadcast the transactions for verification until after that channel is closed. Segwit has enabled the lightening network to be developed safely without the worry of ‘double spending’ on a highly increased scale.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
If the network (of users) wants to expand greatly, then Segwit will be a necessity, if not now, then when really high adoption arrives. Currently, over 50% of Bitcoin transactions use Segwit but because it is a softfork, no one is factually orced to use it.
1 Like
-
It is raseing the mb in a block.
-
It solved the mall problem.
-
By solving the mallware problem it helped second layer platforms like the Lightning network.
-
No, they are no not.
You probably meant the malleability problem (where the transaction ID can be changed) ‘Malware’ means something completely different.
-
Increasing the block size limit to 2 MB was a proposed alternative to Segwit. This proposal was accepted by others who used it to create Bitcoin Cash.
-
Segwit also solved the problem of fixed transaction malleability. Now, changing the digital signature no longer results in a change to the transaction hash.
-
Segwit had to be developed first, before the lightning network could function.
-
No, people wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit, but they will be affected by it since it is a soft fork.
1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
An alternative is to increase the block size limit.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit dealt with the flaw of malleability.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as the lightning network, which enabled smaller transactions to be taken off-chain. This boosts bitcoins network capacity.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No - those who did/do not agree can use a different chain, such as bitcoin cash.
!. Block size increase
2. Transaction malleability
3. SegWit supports the second layer solution which is the lightning network
4. No. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use SegWit.
- Block size increasing to 2mb
- txid malleability which lower fees which helped support layer 2 solutions
- segwit supports layer 2 such as lightning nw
- no
1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
An alternative to Segwit was actually to do a hard fork and
just grow the blocksize limit from 1 mB to 2 mB.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Exept solving the scaling issue by making transactions smaller in size so more can be put in one block, it also solved the transaction Malleability with leaving outside of the transaction the transaction id and not leaving it in the block.(so it made it more difficult to change the transaction hash and make something like a darker miror of the old one)
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Because of Segwit we have Lightning network. It supports the development of second layer protocols, like the Lightning network, and this with it’s turn 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.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Nobody is forced to accept it but as most big Wallets and exchanches have accepted it and implemented it so much more smaller busines will finally turn to it. Also don’t forget that Segwit transactions also are cheaper because the fee is lower And for those who don’t even want to use it then they will folow a hard fork of all them that we already have.
1 Like
increase block size
malleability
fixing malleability enable lightning network to operate on bitcoin
no