Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D90CCA92 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:39:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com (mail-qk0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A4DCD for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:39:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 16so50483299qkg.2 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:39:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KodWrBIjVm+LT8zErFKc8+X37I5rsD0Vfc5fqs+X7PQ=; b=jojYB6ihH0dU3eAZUub/kLooATRfSF6cVUeYukDh0IQ5InnQX5j/vxdWgoq/f7nBmg 8VERaMN13tOFp4g/UxNztI0+DkexpopVdUtOWNg0c+k9iMV7wHmum7tmi4uExKm+F35U B82Qoqh/rb+CwO0rnmUss/szHBrnlSuXld4dKuzluTz91V53OgZGKbS6nmB62EICLUXY JpynGo3TVom4fjAgw7aJjU063CoBjAOIUj/fAkY79YL7NCNVqQdKJP3uYRO53PSypW7E 1Z4A2ny2vB29IgD/IAcWgzDQlcJD3Lv/81L9i5it3uLU/jNoBS2M1BuTjSYVbLX3xXXf 1CNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=KodWrBIjVm+LT8zErFKc8+X37I5rsD0Vfc5fqs+X7PQ=; b=HxZuwICEMO85nIQPGuKnQlW67q80bfjEwKjJ/hqsNgtP5k/u2H5arMYwmjhKLgFWco mY9CI9ruzJDy7IY9vGxuT7uyxkQ8AUyYEmq/G2qH9FefyDBabF4s2wimPnd/k6QW7U40 FJCBuDsi1zOp/Srk4NaCZOKfXYBGC56dVQJY4njJYXWsxT7fn30Zyzvj/VHjgbX7V0Xu I6sHmPk0BwFXrlHuGiz9Xmi7VYK7b1NLs8Lznh1BkheIVQYPvtGl5Rohok2f3VPo+nc8 L4AchmMiHwRjo0w8MYXuzICzR6us6+8QNfhXoX2+Tmc/z0Qr5R6kcf+wFMDcJx4qhTGF alMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111k4ngVUKdSjNCX8/3S1x47QqMhb4FWPK5Z4OTqVHmE49YBWzVR yyV8rqBkyDBxIjRqxEmGlEi+xnxX8/CEh94fRQ== X-Received: by 10.55.126.69 with SMTP id z66mr4602371qkc.48.1499953181386; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:39:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.186.175 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:39:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:39:40 +0200 Message-ID: To: Federico Tenga , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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 14:16:50 +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 13:39:42 -0000 --94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 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. Greetings Hampus 2017-07-13 15:11 GMT+02:00 Federico Tenga via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > On 13 July 2017 at 03:04, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I believe that a good reason not = to wish your node to be segwit=20 compliant is to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that=20 segwit could require. =C2=A0 Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok with=20 >1MB blocks, in case segwit is activated and widely used. Users not=20 interested in segwit transactions may prefer to keep the cost of their=20 node lower.

If the majority of the network decides to deploy S= egWit, it would be in your best interest to validate the SegWit transaction= s, because you might will be downgraded to near-SPV node validation.
It would be okay to still run a "non-SegWit" node if ther= e's no SegWit transactions in the chain of transactions for your bitcoi= ns, 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.

Greetings
Hampus<= br>

2017-07-= 13 15:11 GMT+02:00 Federico Tenga via bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
On 13 July 2017 at 03:04, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoi= n-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&= gt; wrote:

Can you explain why you wish to do this?=C2=A0 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.

I believe that a good r= eason not to wish your node to be segwit=20 compliant is to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that=20 segwit could require. =C2=A0 Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok with=20 >1MB blocks, in case segwit is activated and widely used. Users not=20 interested in segwit transactions may prefer to keep the cost of their=20 node lower.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5--