To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgRDVgdMYZo776iLwbm23aGNDWL85YgD=yF=M-0_vqJ5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1c1d06a9-2e9f-5b2d-42b7-d908ada4b09e@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTsjfMGw6D_OxDthSrrdLEFx2skGedLAjTwz3yCQijyug@mail.gmail.com>
	<001b20f2-1f33-3484-8ad2-1420ae1a2df5@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgR3FQ-wSwGwK6PDD_nZKpnBDAtM=5-fvR-smDa48xjW4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<03cf3326-ae84-96f9-5eee-158054341eff@osc.co.cr>
	<CAAS2fgR1aGOpVoLyGWtO=Q5XU04gBMBEQARPtxMe4WnwQ2CO5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP=-fx6hju0NAa-HcYzivwNbJH0HXwUL=t7iD38XAK_Fwodjng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMkqK9+pvRRtcOomo6is5t8xQ2gLmGb7XaGV80TOm-eO6ZoqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Libby <dan@osc.co.cr>
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: <CAFMkqK9+pvRRtcOomo6is5t8xQ2gLmGb7XaGV80TOm-eO6ZoqA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] how to disable segwit in my build?
Precedence: list

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.