From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08060AB9 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.osc.co.cr (unknown [168.235.79.83]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B291C1AE for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.3] (miner1 [71.94.45.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: danda) by mail.osc.co.cr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 302351F015 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com> <1c1d06a9-2e9f-5b2d-42b7-d908ada4b09e@gmail.com> <001b20f2-1f33-3484-8ad2-1420ae1a2df5@gmail.com> <03cf3326-ae84-96f9-5eee-158054341eff@osc.co.cr> From: Dan Libby Message-ID: <0be972b9-328c-394a-1e90-bd7a37642598@osc.co.cr> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:19:00 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:21:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] how to disable segwit in my build? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:11 -0000 On 07/13/2017 06:39 AM, Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I believe that a good reason not to wish your node to be segwit > compliant is to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that > segwit could require. Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok with >1MB > blocks, in case segwit is activated and widely used. Users not > interested in segwit transactions may prefer to keep the cost of their > node lower. > > If the majority of the network decides to deploy SegWit, it would be in > your best interest to validate the SegWit transactions, because you > might will be downgraded to near-SPV node validation. > It would be okay to still run a "non-SegWit" node if there's no SegWit > transactions in the chain of transactions for your bitcoins, otherwise > you cannot fully verify the the ownership of your bitcoins. > I'm not sure the practicality of this in the long run, but it makes a > case for having an up-to-date non-SegWit node, although I think it's a > bit of a stretch. Right. Well, if I never upgrade to segwit, then there seems little (zero?) risk of having any segwit tx in my tx chain. Thus this would be a way I could continue with a lower bandwidth cap and also keep my coins "untainted", so to speak. I'm not sure about it for the long run either. more just something of an experiment.