1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increase block size
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Solved transaction malleability
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit makes layer 2 protocols such as lightning network possible
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, as segwit is a soft fork.
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing the block limit from 1 mb to 2mb.
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The transaction malleability problem, where the tx idea could be changed by changing the signatures of a transaction.
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning network is a 2nd layer protocol which builds upon the Segwit update. Both together can make millions of transactions per second instead of 7-10 per second on the previous network rules.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, Segwit is a soft fork as it is compatible with the old protocol. However, the majority of wallets and exchanges are adopting this protocol.
1 Like
-
increase block size from its current 1 MB limit. This will result in hard fork, which is not optimal
-
malleability issue
-
segwit support second layer protocol such as lightning network with the malleability fix.
-
no, but with advantage in speed and cost, most wallets will likely adapt.
1 Like
-
Another alternative to increase the number of transactions that can be put into one block, would be to increase the block size.
-
The separation of the signature allowed to protect from transaction malleability as the signature is not part of the block.
-
Segwit and the Lightning network try to resolve scalability issues. Segwit fixes the problem of malleability and Lighting Network can open peer to peer channels for payments off the main blockchain. Once peers agree to propagate the transactions of the lighting network channel to the blockchain they need to refer back to the original Tx IDs and since Segwit prevents changes to the Tx ID, the parties are sure that they are talking to the correct Tx ID.
-
Wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit
1 Like
You can still use old style transactions on Bitcoin as well 
1 Like
Why? There is no real need for it, unless you want to use Segwit specific functionality 
1 Like
Increasing the size from 1MB to 4MB
The issue of transaction maleability
Supports a second layer enabling the lightning network
No, it’s a soft fork
1 Like
- Increasing block size from 1mb to 2mb which resulted in bitcoin cash.
- Besides solving transaction malleability, it also solved the issue of full blocks for the time being by removing the transaction ID.
- By resolving the issue of transaction malleability it allowed 2nd layer protocols to be built such as Lightning Network.
- No it is a softfork, it is voluntary and took time for many of the main bitcoin services to add it.
1 Like
- Implement larger block size limit (bitcoin cash)
- Malleability issue (change TX id but not content)
3.Segwit update allows the development of second layer protocol such as Lightning network that boost tx capacity by taking some samll transactions off-chain. - Not at all
1 Like
-
Increasing the block size
-
Segwit solved the security problem of malleable transactions, where changing the signature would change the transaction id.
-
Segwit adoption made it possible to build 2nd layer protocols (off-chain computations) such as the Lightning network, which rely on unconfirmed transactions. Relying on unconfirmed transactions would be more risky if it were possible to change the transaction ids.
-
No, the services are not forced to, but incentivized, as Segwit results in cheaper transactions, since it reduces the byte-size of the transaction.
1 Like
- As an alternative, it was possible to increase the block size limit
- Segwit alos solved the Transaction maeability problem. It was possible to change the transaction Id without changing the content.
- Segwit allowed the development of second layers protocols like Lightning network
- Segwit is not an obligation, but highly recommended.
1 Like
-
Not everyone found segwit a positive action. They found the answer in creating a hard fork and made BCH out of it, which has larger block size limits.
-
Stopped malleability
-
It supports second layer protocols design like lightning much easier.
-
No one was forced to use segwit
1 Like
1)Block size increase
2)Transaction Mallibility, fees and support for second layer lightning network.
3)It made second layer lightning network possible.
4)No some wallets adopted Segwit others and busy working on it.
1 Like
-
Proposed alternative to SegWit was to upgrade block size.
-
It also solved the malleability issue, because signatures and scripts now can be changed without affecting the TxID.
-
SegWit supports the development of second layer protocols (lightning network). The lightning network will work on boosting bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.
-
No, it is not a mandatory update.
1 Like
- Just increasing the block size.
- Solved the transaction malleability issue improving the security of transactions, helped to lower fees, and added second layer protocol support.
- Segwit made the Lightning Network possible adding second layer protocol support.
- Old addresses and transactions can still be used. It is a soft fork.
1 Like
-
The proposed alternative to Segwit was to implement larger block size.
-
Besides scaling issues, Segwit also solved transaction malleability which made the hash immutable, as the transactions remained unchanged. It allowed for added features, like second-layer protocols and smart contracts.
-
Segwit and Lightening network both support the development of second-layer protocols.
-
People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit. They are coming on their own volition, as they say pixel by pixel, slowly but surely. Some wallets have already adapted it and other services are coming onboard soon.
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
to increase block size -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction speed and Transaction Malleability Bug -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
SegWit is the foundation for the Lightning Network -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
NO
1 Like
- A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the allowed blocksize from 1mb.
- Segwit also solved the problem of transaction malleability meaning signatures can be changed without affecting the transaction ID as the signature is stored outside the TX block.
- Lightning network is a scaling solution that relies on unconfirmed transactions being less risky and easier to design. This is made possible by the introduction of Segwit.
- With the exception of miners, no, Segwit being a softfork it was rolled out by different services at different times and guides have been provided for those who did / did not wish to adopt although updating was strongly advised. Also there was alternatives (like Bitcoin Cash for example).
1 Like
- increasing block size
- it solve transaction malleability by removing the signatures from the block hash
- The malleability fix made any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design, which helps second-layer protocols such as lightning
- No, because it is a soft fork - it reduced factors required for an acceptable blocks, it did not expand them
1 Like
-
Increasing block size.
-
Transaction malleability bug.
-
Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
-
No, it is compatible with the old version (soft fork).
1 Like