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 C2DA099F for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:05:13 +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 B0D8314E for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:05:12 +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 DA3A01F015; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:05:11 -0700 (PDT) To: Gregory Maxwell , 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: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:05:01 -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 16:15:19 +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 16:05:13 -0000 On 07/12/2017 06:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev > 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. I understand it is not in any way a supported configuration. > 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. Please lets not go into the weeds debating about my reasons. I actually have nothing against segwit per-se, and think it is clever tech. I wish that it, or another malleability fix, had been baked in from the start. But it wasn't, and I dislike changing the consensus rules except if critical flaws are found. anyway, some of my reasons are: I am content with status-quo consensus rules. I see greatest long-term value in a fixed, unchanging set of rules (though that is outside my control of course). I have limited bandwidth and resources and prefer 1mb limit for that reason. Prior to activation, I do not choose to signal for segwit in any way shape or form. I realize I could run a pre-segwit node forever, but would like to enjoy more recent features and otherwise avoid bit-rot. I am mule-headed and stubborn. If network-wide activation should happen, I will most likely upgrade to segwit at some point, but I intend that point to be at my choosing, not because software defaults did it for me. I view it as a little bit of a personal challenge and experiment. > 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. no that thought did not enter my mind. still not sure I fully grok it in fact, but no matter. -- Dan Libby Open Source Consulting S.A. Santa Ana, Costa Rica http://osc.co.cr phone: 011 506 2204 7018 Fax: 011 506 2223 7359