Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1646
  1. Increasing the size of the block from 1 mb to 2 mb. Segwit2x which would be a hard fork making the block larger to fit more transactions, but it was cancelled*.
  2. Malleability of signature ID which make the transaction vulnerable to having the signature info changed thereby making it appear to be a unique transaction aside from the original which becomes untraceable due to the change and the sender not finding confirmation, thinking something went wrong with the transaction and sending a replacement transaction (!) resulting in a unintended 2nd payment and we all know once you pay in bitcoin you can’t get your bitcoin back (!).
  3. The Lightning network was designed based on the soft fork change that is Segwit; the code change. It is an additional layer that reduces transaction costs and increases the speed of transacting*.
  4. Not according to current reading material, Segwit is evidently still being adopted by host wallets.* It’s use varies across interfaces apparently.**

References:
*https://cryptocurrencyfacts.com/segwit-and-the-lightning-network-explained/
**https://charts.woobull.com/bitcoin-segwit-adoption/

1 Like
#1647
  1. Increasing the blocksize
  2. Solved the tx malleability
  3. Allows protocols of the second layer to develope such as lightning network for expl.
  4. No, but it is common to use it, as it is an optimal solution.
1 Like
#1648

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The option to increase the transaction block size from 1MB to 2MB was proposed as a solution to the block size limitation.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Segwit removed the witness (signature) data out of the transaction block data structure freeing up space but also allowed updating script or signature data without modifying the transaction ID, which is a hash of the transaction data block.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    The Lightning network allows for removing small, unconfirmed transactions off the bitcoin network to be processed in batch at a later time, saving transaction fees. This is based on the transaction ID being static.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, the Segwit upgrade was a soft fork which is also compatible with the previous blockchain. This allows people, wallets and other services to upgrade at their own choosing.

1 Like
#1649

Most nodes have already updated to segwit and has been accepted. Wallets do require longer to update. ATM I think around 50% of transactions are segwit :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1650
  1. Increase block size resulting in a hard fork
  2. Transaction ID malleability and development support of 2nd layer protocols.
  3. Segwit supports 2nd layer dev. like lightning network
  4. Segwit is a soft fork and does not force wallets etc.to adopt
1 Like
#1651
  1. To increase the block size.
  2. It solved the transaction malleability issue.
  3. Segwit allows Lightning to act as a second layer solutions to bitcoin.
  4. No they are not, they can continue to using the Legacy version.
1 Like
#1652

Thanks. That took some time to update to 50% :slight_smile:

#1653

1 - the alternative consisted in a solution to increase the block size. This is not the best as it is only a temporary solution, it pushes to centralisation as smaller miners will not have access the newly needed storage and machines. Also it would imply longer time needed to push tx through the network. As a result mass adoption would become slower
2 - Segwit was in fact intended to solve a non critical bug, tx malleability where a small portion of the signature could be altered, which resulted in a new tx ID, and the original tx to be lost
3 - Thanks to Segwit the second layer protocols could be developed, being the lightning network. This will also help the capacity limits of the blocks because small portions of the blocks can be taken offline untill needed
4 - segwit is a Soft Fork, therefore people have the choice to or not to implement

1 Like
#1654
  1. Increasing the bloc size was the proposed alternative to Segwit
  2. Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability
    3.Lightning takes frequent, smaller transactions off the chain
    4.No. People can still conduct transactions as they did previously
1 Like
#1655

1- A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB.

2- More than solving the scaling issue, Segwit also stopped transaction malleability making a more secure network.

3- Lightning network is a 2nd layer protocol and Segwit supports the development of these protocols.

4- No, because Segwit was a softfork, there is still the option to use the previous protocol.

1 Like
#1656
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    An alternative was to implement larger Tx block size, later forked into btc cash
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It also solves the malleability problem where Tx could have it ID modified
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit supports layer 2 solutions on top of bitcoin, one of which is the lightning network
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No one is forced to use it. It was a soft fork
1 Like
#1657
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit is Bitcoin Cash, which is a hard fork upgrade that increased the 1 MB block size limit.
  2. Segwit not only solved the scaling issues of block size for transactions, but also made it so that when a signature is changed, the transaction ID of the block cannot also be changed. Removing the signatures from the block creates more space for transactions and creates a more secure block structure.
  3. Segwit is connected with the Lightning network because the Lightning network uses Segwit to pull blocks of transactions off the blockchain until a node wants to use the block. This creates more security for the block because it monitors the block from insincere changes.
  4. No, not all bitcoin stakeholders are forced to use Segwit. From a security perspective, many big names like Ledger and Coinbase were pretty quick in adopting Segwit because it provides more transaction security for any block. As big cryptocurrency stakeholders, these popular organizations are incentivized to move with the demand of their base, and so are basically forced to adopt Segwit to retain customers; since Segwit has clear benefits, and is at least a step toward something better.
1 Like
#1658

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

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    it solved the problem of malleability where an venerability was eliminated.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    With Segwit, second layer protocols that allows bitcoin to be programmed and increase in usability

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    Segwit is not forced on anyone. It is based on community and supply and demand.

#1659

Changing the block size from 1 to 2mb.

It also solved the tx malleability issue.

Segwit supports second layer i.e. enabling the use of the lightning network.

No, that would be a hardfork. Segwit is a softfork.

1 Like
#1660

  1. Alternative solution was to increase the block size limit

  2. Segwit also solves transaction malleability

  3. Lightning network will process frequent and small transactions off chain and process it on the bitcoin blockchain when ready

  4. No, they could still use the previous rules and keep on going, only if they want to update the segwit that they have to follow the segwit rules.

1 Like
#1661
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

To increase the block size, which lead to a hard fork.

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

It was originally proposed as a solution to Transaction malleability issues, so it would be impossible to chance transaction ID after the transaction was sent.

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Without the malleability issue it would be easier and less risky to develop second layer protocol features that need to rely on unconfirmed transactions like the Lightning network.

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

No

1 Like
#1662

  1. Increasing Block size to 2 MB, which caused, according to the article, the hard fork to Bitcoin cash.

  2. The “bug” of transaction malleability.

  3. Segwit allowed the implementation of layer 2 solutions such as Lightning network.

  4. No, old transactions without Segwit can also be used.

1 Like
#1663
  1. The alternative was to increase a block size.
  2. SegWit solved the transaction malleability issue.
  3. SegWit supports a second layer protocol, Lightning network, which allows transactions much faster.
  4. No. It was a soft fork that old addresses and transactions can still be used.
1 Like
#1664
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was an increase in maximal block size.
  2. Besides dealing with scaling problem, Segwit lowers fees and solves transaction malleability which enables a second layer solution.
  3. Segwit basically enabled second layer solutions such as Lightening network.
  4. Segwit update results in a soft fork so no one was forced to use it.
1 Like
#1665

1: Enlarge the blocksize. Some went ahead whit that and that resulted in bitcoin cash.
2: fixing transaction malleability.

3: The lightning network will boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready. (copy/paste from article)

4: No.

1 Like