-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative to Seqwit was to increase the MB size of the blocks. -
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?
Seqwit introduced the idea of second layer protocols with the moving of a piece of the transaction off-chain, namely the signature. The Lightning Network will improve bitcoins transaction capability by taking some of the info off-chain until the transaction is ready to be completed. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? At the time of the writing, Segwit was still being adopted by large companies such as Coinbase and others. No one is forced to use Seqwit but adoption is good because it may enable other functionality, lower transaction fees, and increase adoption of bitcoin over time.
To implement a larger block size limit (bitcoin cash)
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.
Another big step forward made possible by SegWit is that it supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
No because it’s a soft fork.
1.to decrease the usage size used on the tx block by moving the signatures outside the block, making it capable of having more transactions, and other than that it helps to protect the transaction from malleability, separating the signatures to prevent the tx id being changed.
2.It also fixed the issue of transaction malleability because of segregation of signature or also known as witness.
3.they connected because of segwit supports the second layer protocols just like the lightning network.
4.No it’s optional, some of the services or people don’t want it because they see it as a temporary solution, but others see it as one step advantage to the better. Everyone can still use the old protocols if they don’t wanted to update.
- Increasing block size
2.Malleability (alteration of the unique ID of a transaction)
3.Segwit supports development of second layer solutions made relying on unconfirmed transactions less risky.
4.No it is optional
-
To increase blocksize limit such as done by BCH
-
The transaction malleability issue, which it was designed to tackle in the 1st place
-
The transaction malleability problem prevented the development of secon layer protocols
-
No, but as time moves on it deploys itself as standard more and more
1.- First developers were thinking to increase BTC Block size, which creates a hard fork like BTC cash has adopted.
2.- Segwit have created a solution to TX malleability and open a door to the next layers protocol (smart contracts), which segwit allows.
3.- Lighting Network needs a second layer, which Segwit allows.
4.- No, It creates a soft fork so old blocks became valid.
I’m not entirely sure, but most nodes have probably upgraded to segwit by not. Wallets also need to add support for it which is a bit slower process. But even when most of them update, old transactions will remain valid. 
Actually Segwit was an update to transaction structure, old nodes also see these transactions as valid but are unable to spend them.
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Another proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size limit. It is currently on 1mb. The problem with this would have been that the blocks would of always hit the limit and would keep filling the blockchain. -
What did Segwit solve other than the scaling issue?
Segwit didn’t only solve the scaling issue for bitcoin but also solved the issue for transaction melleability. The way Segwit solved this issue was by moving the signature out of the transaction from the inputs to not making it a part of the transaction. This solved the problem because it didn’t matter if you changed the signature, that wouldn’t change the hash or the transaction ID. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit and the Lightning network are connected in the sense that it allowed a second layer of solutions possible -
No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft fork).
- Simply increasing the block size.
- A bug in the code that could allow someone to modify some details in the transaction signature, which would result in a different hash. The originator could then be fooled into resending the transaction.
- SegWit makes it less risky and easier to implement features such as the Lightning network, which is reliant on unconfirmed transactions that are settled once participants are ready to.
- No. In fact, many didn’t and forked the network. Of those remaining, integration was done at different paces as wallets introduced the necessary upgrades.
- increasing block size
- Fixed transaction malleability, made more room on blocks, and supported the development of second layer protocols.
- L.N boosts bitcoins transaction capacity by taking frequent small transaction off the chain only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when users are ready.
- No, because it was a soft fork
- A proposed alternative was to increase the block size. However, since the growth was looking parabolic, this was only a short term fix. This would also cause a hard fork which the community wanted to avoid.
- It also fix the transaction malleability problem. This problem would enable people to change the transaction hash by changing the input. By taking the signature out of the block, the hash would not be influenced by a change in input.
- By fixing the malleability problem, Segwit made any features that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. This was a big step forward for second layer protocols such as the lightning network.
- Yes and no. If they would stay in the bitcoin network, they would be forced since it is a soft fork. However, there were some people not agreeing with this and they did a hard fork on their own, which led to bitcoin cash.
No in either case, because old style txs are still valid on Bitcoin
Okay yes I understand. However, then they had to accept that their nodes would not be able to verify ‘new’ transactions, right?
Edit: new
Actually new transactions are still valid by old nodes, they just wouldn’t be able to spend it. To learn exactly how this works, I recommend you check the Bitcoin programing course.
1.The alternative was to increase the block size limit which resulted BCH as a hard fork.
2. It solved transaction malleability and lower fees.
3. By making second layer solutions possible.
4.No, old transactions can still be used.
1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Part of the community wanted to simply increase the block size limit.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
By removing the signature data from the transaction id hash. Not only did it allow for more transactions in a block, it also solved the transaction malleability problem due to the fact that changing a signature after the fact would not affect the transaction hash anymore.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning network is connected because it would not work when transaction malleability was still present. in other words “Segwit helped making Lightning network possible”
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, nobody is forced to use it. It is the wallet providers that have a choice to integrate it into their wallet. At time of writing this post around 70% of all transactions adopted Segwit.
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
A larger block size limit. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The transactio malleability. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit made second layer possible. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it is a soft fork.
-
The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the maximum allowable block size.
-
Segwit solved the transaction malleability bug as well as improving scaling
-
Segwit makes the layer 2 Lightning network possible due to that fact that the TX id for any given transaction will always be the same and cannot be manipulated so it can be trusted without involving further work.
-
No, no one is forced to use Segwit due to its backwards compatibility with pre-segwit nodes.
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increasing the size of the block
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Malleability
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? It enables second-layer protocols
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? Since it is a soft fork, they will be required to use it once adoption reaches over 50%