1 it was to increase block size
2 it fixed the transaction id malleability
3 thanks to the implementation of segwit bitcoin could be able to support second layer solution as lightning network
4 no they’re not forced
1 Like
-
Another option for resolution was to increase the maximal block size, like it was done in BitCoin Cash.
-
It was initially designed to fix transaction malleability and therefore improve the security. Another benefit was the support for second layer protocols.
-
Lightning network is second layer solution that’s relying on unconfirmed transactions and by fixing malleability, Segwit made such solutions more secure and easier for development.
-
No, but using it brings many benefits so they most probably should.
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
increase the Block size to 2 MB -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The malleability issue. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning is in a second layer of protocols supported by Segwit, taking small quantities of transactions off-chain and put them on-chain once the users are ready. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Yes, and the miners who did not agree created a fork with Bitcon Cash.
2 Likes
Old style transactions are still valid on Bitcoin. 
2 Likes
-
Increasing the block size to 2mb and larger
-
Transaction Malleability
-
Segwit makes second layer solution like Lightning network possible. The Transaction Malleaility had to be solved before creating a second layer solution like Lightning.
-
Not forced but many have adopted Segwit.
1 Like
The alternative was to increase the block size.
Segwit solve the transaction malleability, supports the development of second layer protocols like lightning network, also boosted development work on other features such as Mast, and Schnorr signatures and TumbleBit.
Segwit supports development of second layer protocol like lightning network.
Not, they are not, in fact segwit is not adopted right now at 100%.
See the link below, it shares the percentage of adoption.
@filip , A question came into my mind, where are the signatures linked to an TX saved? Are they kept decentralized?
1 Like
-
An alternative to the SegWit would be a block size increase.
-
It prevented transcation malleability, by storing the signatures outside of the tx. Also allowed second layer solutions to bitcoin, such as the lightning network.
-
The lightning network is a second layer protocol on top of the bitcoin network made possbile by SegWit.
-
No, wallets need to implements SegWit and people are free to use it. This is because SegWit is a soft fork.
1 Like
[quote=“filip, post:1, topic:8408”]
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? The larger block size, which created BTC Cash
-
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
It also solved the TX Malleability, removing the signature from the input and placing it outside of the block creating “block weight”(NEW 4MB Limit) Before people could change transaction IDs, which could be used as an exploit to steal money. -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? It is blockchains second layer of protocol, which allows speedy transactions to occur off chain and when the user is ready to be processed on chain.
-
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? If they want to be part of the new chain, they will increase their transaction time.
1 Like
-
A proposed alternative to Segwit was Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size
-
Segwit mainly solved the transaction malleability issue. Now changing the tx signature doesn’t change the hash. This also allowed for second-layer protocols and smart contracts.
-
Segwit made the lightning network easier by fixing the transaction malleability. This made using protocols for unconfirmed transactions less risky
-
Nobody is forced to use segwit, but I believe if the majority of the hashpower of the network is using it then you will be forced to use it
1 Like
Additional reference … https://bitcointechtalk.com/transaction-malleability-explained-b7e240236fc7
I don’t recall reading about a second fix to the malleability problem, As far as additional space for transactions, simply expanding block size was the solutions for hard fork Bitcoin Cash and SV to follow.
Beyond the ability to stuff more transactions into a block by moving the digital signature information outside the block, more importantly changes to digital signatures would not change the transaction hash which was key to preventing some questionable activities by scammers and allowing the Lightning 2nd layer protocol to actually work as it depends on the transaction hash not changing.
The lightning network works by creating a double-signed transaction and if one of the transaction hashes can change that can invalidate that particular lightning transaction.
Segwit is an example of a software fork. Wallets are not forced to create transactions as Segwit transactions. Slowly more and more wallets are adopting Segwit transactions and as more and more do Bitcoin fees are dropping and transaction capacity is increasing.
1 Like
- What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
- increase the block size
- What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
- tx maleability
- How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
- SegWit is the foundation for the Lightning Network. By eliminating the possibility for transaction malleability, secure payment channels can be created that will eventually allow the Bitcoin network to process millions of transactions per second.
- Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
- No, they can choose. Also the adoption took some time for wallets to implement this update.
1 Like
Signatures are still kept in the blockchain. It’s just kept in a way that non-segwit clients never see or store the signature. It’s just in a different datastructure
2 Likes
Most of the nodes in the network I believe already updated to segwit, but quite a few wallets didn’t. In any case, old style txs are still valid and will remain so.
Increasing the blocksize to 2 MB. This wouldn’t have solved the Txn malleability issue.
It helped the scaling issue and solved the transaction malleability issue.
Lightning network and other smart contract implementations needed the malleability issue fixed, so that relying on unconfirmed transactions would become less risky.
No. They can post transactions according to the original protocol (Soft fork), but they’ll need to get processed by a smaller set of nodes and hence their Txn will be slower (or more expensive).
1 Like
- Block size increase. Led to bitcoin cash hard fork.
- Segwit solves the malleability issue with signatures.
- Segwit made lightning network possible.
- It is a soft fork many exchanges only recently added segwit addresses.
1 Like
-
What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative to segwit was increasing the block size limit. -
What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Segwit solve the malleability issue making it so that altering signature data will not alter the transaction id -
How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
segwit makes it possible for lightning have the ability to transact bitcoin before putting it on the blockchain. -
Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
no
1 Like
increasing block size to 2mb
solved the malleability issue that altering a signature could do
Segwit allows for the scaling to happen (Layer 2) solutions such as the Lightning network
people are not forced to sue it as it is a soft fork
1 Like
- 2MB block size…hard fork …Bitcoin Cash
2.Malleability, scaling, and building on top of the network, second layer solutions - Lightning network, a second layer scaling solution takes micro payments off chain, then as a larger single transaction, posted to the network
4.No, soft fork
1 Like
1- The proposed was to increase the block size to 2 mb, but this was a temporally solution because the tx will get bigger with the time and in the end you will need to increase the block size again. That is what BTC cash did.
2 - SigWit change the way that data its store and solved the transaction malleability, This flaw allowed anyone to change small details that modified the transaction id (and the subsequent hash) but not the content. 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.
3- SegWit 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 ready.
4- No its a Softfork, but it made people who did not agree to generate a hard fork and increase the size of transactions and BTC cash was born
1 Like
- Bitcoin Cash, some people were against SegWit, so they Bitcoin Cash was developed by increasing the limit size.
- Segwit solved transaction malleability by removing the signature information into a separate block which allows sigs and scripts to be changed without the TX ID being affected.
- SegWit supports the second layer protocols, which the Lightening network is.
- No they are not as SegWit is a soft fork, with older nodes still present.
1 Like