Segwit Reading Assignment

[Ledaley86]

1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB, thus allowing more transactions to be added to the block.
2. It solved the malleability issue where a user could alter the user id from a subsequent block. Bitcoin malleability was a threat to the bitcoin blockchain because it could potentially lead to a user sending more bitcoin to the receiver.
3. Segwit reduced the size of each transaction by removing the scriptsig from the transaction. Removing signature from the transaction allowed more transactions to be added to the block because the signature carried a heavy load. In turn, this increased the speed of each transaction - the Lightning network needed this to happen because they rely on small transactions to be filled quickly in the blockchain.
4. Segwit was a soft fork, so technically the blockchain will still verify blocks under the original protocol because Segwit does not supercede it. Soft forks make previously valid blocks invalid.

[Alko89]

@Ledaley86

Lightning network needed this to happen because they rely on small transactions to be filled quickly in the blockchain.

Lightning network doesn’t store its transactions on the blockchain. The balances are stored in the channels and only the settlement transaction (once the channels are closed) gets stored on the blockchain.

[Den]

@filip

• What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
• Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to enlarge the block size.

2. On the top of the scaling issue, Segwit solves the transaction malleability issue.

3. A “Layer 2” payment protocol like Lightning Network requires the transaction malleability issue to be fixed (done through SegWit upgrade) in order to be fully functionning.

4. The SegWit upgrade was a softfork per se since there was no extension of the rules’ set but simplification without change of the block size.
   Nonetheless nodes / miners which disagree with the new technical solution fork out to create Bitcoin Cash.

[BezoCryptos]

*** What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?**
The proposed alternative was increase the cap on the block size like bitcoin cash
*** What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?**
It solved the malleability issue
*** How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?**
Thanks to Segwit solving the malleability issue, Lightening Network was able to build layer 2 solutions more securely
*** Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?**
Yes due to it being a softfork.

[QQQ]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The proposed alternative was to increase block size limit, as a result, a fork of the bitcoin network, Bitcoin Cash was born.

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
a. Segwit not only resolved the issue of scaling issue due to 1mb limit, it also solved the issue of transaction malleability.
i. Transaction malleability occurs when the scripsig (signature) of ii. transaction is changed, changing the transaction ID (TxID)
iii. By taking out the signature from the block hashing, even changes to the signature will not result in the TxID changing

b. Segwit supports the development of 2nd layer protocols such as the lightning network
i. The malleability fix made any features that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design

c. Segwit boosted development work on MAST
i. Enables more complex bitcoin smart contracts.

d. And schnorr signatures
i. Enable another transaction capacity boost

e. and TumbleBit
i. Anonymous top-layer network

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
a. Lightning network is a 2nd layer protocol built on Segwit

b. Both together enable high volumes of transactions/sec instead of ~7/sec.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
a. As the update is a soft-fork update, services are not forced to use Segwit

b. This means that the update is still compatible with the old protocol
i. This is due to ‘block weight’
ii. Mashup of the block size with and without the signature data, capped at 4mb
iii. Block size limit for the base transactions remains at 1mb

[Voda]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Increasing block size limit.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Malleability of Transactions
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   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.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No, but by doing so, we can fit more TX in blocks and reduce tx fees.

[Gaelaxy]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
The alternative proposal was to just increase the size of the block from 1 mB to 2 mB.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
The transaction malleability problem
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit made the LN possible by putting the signatures outside the public-viewable block. LN is a second layer on top of a blockchain that creates payment channels and micropayments to speed up the execution of transactions.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, they can use the another fork called BitcoinCash that increased the block size rather than implement SegWit.

[serafin]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Protocol which implement a larger block size limit.
2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
This protocol solved problem of transaction malleability.
3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit made second layers (lightning network) possible.
4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
5. Segwit was a soft fork, therefore people wallet and other services were not forced to use it.

[Alko89]

@BezoCryptos

Yes due to it being a softfork.

@Gaelaxy

they can use the another fork called BitcoinCash that increased the block size rather than implement SegWit.

Actually you can still make old style transactions on Bitcoin

[Sol]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

SegWit2X

2. 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.”

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

SegWit fixed transaction malleability by removing the signature information and enabled second layer scaling solutions, leading to the birth of the Lightning Network.

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

No! For instance, the Bitcoin’s original address format Legacy addresses are not segwit compatible, but you can still send BTC from a P2PKH address to a segwit(Bech32) address without any problems.

[BezoCryptos]

I believe that is because nodes can choose not to update to segwit correct?

[Alko89]

@Sol

SegWit2X

Segwit2x was a thing when Segwit was already implemented. I forgot what was the point. But the alternative to Segwit was Bitcoin cash that increased block size.

[Alko89]

@BezoCryptos

I believe that is because nodes can choose not to update to segwit correct?

Even if the node is updated you can still send old transactions. Wallets are responsible for signing transactions and any node will accept it if its valid by either old or new rules

[Helen]

1. The alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB to allow more transactions by creating a hard fork. Without this, transaction fees and confirmation time would increase. Also, it would mean increased costs for miners and nodes who would need to be more hardware for storage and memory and higher Internet usage. Propogation would also take longer.

2. As well as resolving the scaling issue, Segwit also addressed the malleability issue - where the scriptsig could be altered. Although transaction data was not altered, there was a slight risk of fraud which prevented second layer protcols from being built.

3. The lightning network is a second layer smart contract protocol which sits on top of the blockchain and is designed to increase the functionality of bitcoin by enabling higher security, faster transactions and cross/off-chain transactions.

4. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit because it is a soft fork. Today, most major wallets, etc. support Segwit.

[jonnycoco]

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
   Bitcoin Cash and higher block size of 2mB

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
   Transaction Maleability

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
   They allow unconfirmed transactions to be completed using signature data.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
   No they are not.

[Nicholas_Diluccio]

@filip

• hat was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
• What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
• How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
• Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

1. to increase block sizes

2. tx mallibility

3. Segwit solved the need for trusted transactions which enabled lightning network to bundle small regular payments and execute them on the blockchain when all parties were ready

4. No, it was intended for people to be able to choose.

[A.Mors]

1. To increase the size of the blocks.
2. It also solved the issue of transaction malleability.
3. Segwit made second layer solutions possible.
4. No, old addresses and transactions can still be used (soft fork).

[cryptoHawk]

What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increasing the blocksize, which would have resulted in a hard fork

What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction ID Malleability

How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Segwit allowed for less risky Layer 2 enhancements that rely on unconfirmed transactions.

Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No

[asteriskWorldChamp]

1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the max block size.

2. Segwit also solved the tx malleability issue.

3. Segwit helped to make the Lightning network possible.

4. Segwit is a soft fork update with hard fork results (chain split)

[Sol]

Please add it to your reply when you remember what you have forgot. That will make your reply more clear for other readers or you may end up admitting SegWit2X was the only alternative proposed at the time when you do a little bit of digging.