To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
	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>
From: Dan Libby <dan@osc.co.cr>
Message-ID: <a09c16fc-528d-da3f-1ea2-18009c57af13@osc.co.cr>
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: <CAAS2fgR1aGOpVoLyGWtO=Q5XU04gBMBEQARPtxMe4WnwQ2CO5w@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 07/12/2017 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