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 5BE98B14 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:04:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com (mail-vk0-f48.google.com [209.85.213.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C27CD108 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id y70so21929595vky.3 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:04:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=wUs4oPEadAVJbnFv9OtlYMVPHxu990phl7bP6OoLhvY=; b=uW+59g3+8PEkuQkDPoUBuXwYgRme/Xc1Um1/ApEQWriJlMPUmn9uBmhY7ybN87qlRe WyjGekseRU4wZ89IhqCtCCfblx/FEKjgqVVPtqHtpjh/cRAC9PTiDQD1Mye8/aJHxo6U JhQrrES1Ocm2urQ+6OWTCQCGXsumf5ZnTcqM9ql8HE/8p89w2HvjVdKg+p+CtrFVQ+rW 4wYKyPDHLEIIwqXSADW4zBm0C7yMCbVZycwCES5kWNtnleU+2k4Xro58wQuSCdOBJ93b ErqBzhOWYpk6wFfln56b33j9bsFsEwuNehhko/O1TaEjvngAWXY3CwuJarAxnhs+adcI x+iQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wUs4oPEadAVJbnFv9OtlYMVPHxu990phl7bP6OoLhvY=; b=lDg4l+ZVYINNGA8/UjMtDVTgkTh61TmHVXbuDics1oFgk8loka7EB2kzkOjiArxcrJ QIQD69hOj8VCxskmtOpwLPNxCI0cxpmxMUQBqN9uFbDYYjAej6Iq49ecssyiotowXtmv cPbc91NAiSvvdvpRtz6XTlg3wRYU3+56aRfJkxhcScr5e2AehjdzD5TgIqXLdHIj2uJO IepMaLTXI5t9HRN0PBj2I5GT2qNQIWUPcjQ9zYe9/o2FMIHik7M9PDNYHo+KUvEYVxxF MX42FlFGgJn+LPiJfsMLLA1nK0O1592fS2pjCQ3xJtNqCr0FGElI7UqhKC4odS97lIdF 72ig== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112wLM6EDY/ppr7vUw4RMT9Lcx0TauKwNi0Lmq0JBuJ1BY8HjUJM ZgubQZEt0/b6yWSrLkz4LIwUpzz9Jw== X-Received: by 10.31.50.87 with SMTP id y84mr735485vky.89.1499907859925; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:04:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.40.2 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:04:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <03cf3326-ae84-96f9-5eee-158054341eff@osc.co.cr> 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: Gregory Maxwell Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:04:19 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: JXSU7V39q7O3L2LHzVLGUwNXHcw Message-ID: To: Dan Libby , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham 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 01:39:18 +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 01:04:21 -0000 On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi! > > Up to now, I have purposefully been running bitcoin releases prior to > 0.13.1 as a way to avoid the (possible) segwit activation, at least > until such time as I personally am comfortable with it. It is not simple to do so correctly, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head; a number of things must be changed it isn't as simple as disabling the activiation because of the segwit P2P changes. Nor is it a supported configuration. Even if it were now, it wouldn't be one we'd continue to support in the future after segwit is active, as we're likely to drop deployment/compat code. Can you explain why you wish to do this? It should have absolutely no adverse impact on you-- if you don't use segwit, you don't use it-- it may be the case that there is some confusion about the implications that I could clear up for you... or suggest alternatives that might achieve your goals. Having a node that supports it won't make it more likely to activate, you can mine without signaling segwit even on a node that supports it. Your own transactions will not use segwit just because your node supports it. Effectively the only reason I'm aware of to intentionally not run with segwit support beyond just not having upgraded yet, is a desire to try to temporarily have as your tip block a block that was actively stealing the segwit transactions of a third party. Which doesn't seem either personally or publicly desirable; but I fully admit I may be missing some good reason which I am not aware of.