Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1926
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was doubling the block size.
  2. It solved the transfer malleability issue.
  3. Segwit made the lighting network possible.
  4. No, as Segwit was introduced not all wallets were intune with the upgrade but they could still use the old protocol.
1 Like
#1927
  • can still use the old protocol: otherwise, that would be a problem if you awakened from a comma or came out of a long term institution or whatnot, just to find your transactions weren’t sending from an old wallet. man… that would be a bummer :flushed:
1 Like
#1928
  1. Block size increase
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. Segwit made second layer possible
  4. No
3 Likes
#1929
  1. increasing the block size
  2. yes it also helped solved transaction malleability, and made everything faster which in turn lowers fees
  3. Segwit allowed for a second layer to be built and Lightning is part of that second layer
  4. No
3 Likes
#1930
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increase block size hard fork
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? tx malleability
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? scalability
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? no
3 Likes
#1931

I got you another great article. I hope it helps :smiley:
https://www.ledger.com/academy/difference-between-segwit-and-native-segwit

2 Likes
#1932

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing the blocksize as Bitcoin Cash did.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    The transaction maliability problem.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    The transaction maliability bug made transaction confirmation too unreliable for complex application layers on the block chain, segwit fixed that issue allowing lightning network to be created.

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

3 Likes
#1933

Native Segwit is a recent optimization of Segwit (not 2x) that uses bech32 addresses :stuck_out_tongue:

The article does mention segwit2x as an initial proposal to segwit that was later dropped. Segwit was initially planned as a hard fork update but was later changed to soft fork.
Not sure how that initial implementation was called, maybe it was also segwit2x. But it would mean we are talking about two different segwit2x.

4 Likes
#1934

  1. The proposed alternative to Segwit was to raise the block size limit from 1 mB to 2 mB.

  2. Segwit also fixed the malleability issue, making it impossible to alter transaction data.

  3. The Segwit fixed the malleability issue and, thus, made any solutions that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design, which is the case of the lightning network.

  4. No, many wallets took a long time to adopt the Segwit upgrade.

2 Likes
#1935
  1. To increase block size
  2. Segwit also solved the transaction malleability problem by removing the signature from the transaction hash
  3. Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols such as Lightning Network
  4. People, wallets and other services are not forced to use Segwit, but as adoption has spread it has become more likely that they do - currently around 50% of BTC transactions use Segwit.
2 Likes
#1936

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A: To increase the block size from 1MB to 2MB.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    A: It solved the transaction malleability that could be exploited by bad actors. Now that the signature portion of the transaction has been removed/segregated from the main tx, even if the signature is manipulated after the tx is sent out, the actual transaction’s hash does not change.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    A: Segwit made layer two solutions like the Lightning Network possible via “any feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design” - Referenced Article.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    A: They are not forced to use Segwit.

2 Likes
#1937

  1. Increasing the block size.

  2. Segwit resolved the “transaction malleability” bug.

  3. One result of Segwit implementation is that it supports the development of layer 2 solutions, such as Lightning.

  4. No, they can adopt it or not as they see fit, because it remains compatible with older versions of the protocol.

2 Likes
#1938

  1. What was proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Making the block size bigger (1MB to 2MB).

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It stopped transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    The Lightning network is a second layer protocol. Second layer protocols were made possible by the Segwit upgrade. The lighting network increases bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain and settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, you can still use the old format to do transactions.

2 Likes
#1939

  1. increase of block size.

  2. It solved the issue of a user being able to change a tx id, which would change the hash. so a person could receive funds then change the tx id then claim they never received the funds.

  3. small transactions will be taken off the main chain and are settled at users discretion. it allowed the further development of second layer protocols and made the use of unconfirmed transactions less of a risk. It also allowed the further development of smart contracts which is used by the Lightening network.

  4. No, it is compatible with the old protocol.

1 Like
#1940

  1. Simply increasing the block size constraints.

  2. also solved the transaction malleability issue where someone could change the transaction ID after a transaction was sent simply by changing something in the signature.

  3. After the Segwit update other second layer protocols could be added which allowed for the lightning network since it is a second layer protocol.

  4. No because it was a soft fork update

1 Like
#1941

1.- An increase in block size
2.- It solved the transaction malleability issue too
3.- It makes Lightning network possible
4.- No, since it was a soft fork

1 Like
#1942
  1. Increasing block size
  2. It solve the Tx malleability problem.
  3. It made lightning network possible and supports the second layer solution.
  4. They are not forced since it is a soft fork, it is still compatible with old protocol.
1 Like
#1943
  1. increasing the block size
  2. the malleability of tx’s
  3. by removing the malleability issue, the lightning nework is more secure because the unconfirmed transactions are more secure.
1 Like
#1944
  1. no, it is a soft fork. even though by now all bitcoin core functionality works with it.
1 Like
#1945

An increase in block size.

Transaction malleability, the loophole in Bitcoin that enabled the possibility to change the signature of a transaction before it is approved in the blockchain.

Segwit made second layer solutions possible. The lightning network is such a solution.

No.

1 Like