1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
|
Return-Path: <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0463AF0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:35:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com (mail-oi0-f48.google.com
[209.85.218.48])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F7FF175
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:35:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id x187so50658387oig.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:35:47 -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=IOwMgUviVm4eeyq6VY2pfhayMXVBRE7M1FsWuKYVy0I=;
b=dQnVa6yHYTvPuJzi0Bc1LCQq8veLF5YcWtL1AU+N/TSwKXMTAaEpkNP5AXu1wbjnGG
WYoOnRilPqGRnaYjlFyjtzC+KtR8YgYWNAskzdOnuiW7004mLWFrt6FfF7eUcjcTrDI4
f31GqVdYY4AxL3Gw4sGfQdnKagMlJfagxYEEDNO37HYPWkWPg+gQpc9eRViJZ41FodYy
t4mCXS99OnyDhTeE1/aKLY1uq1Phy2asQgg+HG26P78/ohnEqPJ15Jouht2uqFGjiYxH
pMTXR2o5szNf+pQBXlKEBr026Y66QI/k5+faLs+iNlnE1kZ17nKeqfQCjtF/bYTqKAkk
1cag==
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=IOwMgUviVm4eeyq6VY2pfhayMXVBRE7M1FsWuKYVy0I=;
b=JzXh/UgGBrWmWBkUwKUGuvlSKVkRfhWjwq9W4tUyY+zVHSI9SagKywJAcGC/oWJPnq
gUuc3gcjzlavg8+3x4FSWdG3MU2BjFgKTt3zJuWC9Yyq2bJAGbn4xS6pkO+5n7Ma4D9I
E53PCoKD1HFfpmkOdC/Q9rXt7qvODvWJz4stlxBJ1gRRlSW5ou+19w38lO/wEQpoAvRN
/zuOKKLxQczdwPmQsxDTgYCEkKHL1HxccfI1mOd/1rHPts+BEyqDATWQjjabCK+NOHNw
/gfFZelLJgc+u1glP51yHsdQn6uE7RWjG6ofOgorQbFUgNVXGq0nEISLzciudh6wv3qG
a3ZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112u3GYeaMwitvCaLEeL5uYBeLyx6W+YCY4Ex7xA6Z3QVA9hsh6v
WOPjfrMBJG/rLE6t8Z1K25gF6nFwqA==
X-Received: by 10.202.88.69 with SMTP id m66mr2766256oib.204.1499963746673;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.175.76 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0be972b9-328c-394a-1e90-bd7a37642598@osc.co.cr>
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>
<0be972b9-328c-394a-1e90-bd7a37642598@osc.co.cr>
From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:35:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CADL_X_cZc4K3k=JzVES7Jba6qqZwv0Lx7opCi8eL_GM5M01Y8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Libby <dan@osc.co.cr>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d37c84be8f905543586f5"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
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 17:00:00 +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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:35:47 -0000
--001a113d37c84be8f905543586f5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 07/13/2017 06:39 AM, Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg 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.
>
>
If you mean you wish to avoid receiving UTXOs that have value that was at
one point previously encumbered by a SegWit output then no, you can't avoid
that. No more than you can currently avoid receiving BTC that were at one
point in time encumbered by a P2SH output.
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--001a113d37c84be8f905543586f5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 07/13/2017 06:39 AM, Ha=
mpus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
>> I believe that a good reason not to wish your node to be segwit<br=
>
> compliant is to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that<br>
> segwit could require.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok=
with >1MB<br>
> blocks, in case segwit is activated and widely used. Users not<br>
> interested in segwit transactions may prefer to keep the cost of their=
<br>
> node lower.<br>
><br>
> If the majority of the network decides to deploy SegWit, it would be i=
n<br>
> your best interest to validate the SegWit transactions, because you<br=
>
> might will be downgraded to near-SPV node validation.<br>
> It would be okay to still run a "non-SegWit" node if there&#=
39;s no SegWit<br>
> transactions in the chain of transactions for your bitcoins, otherwise=
<br>
> you cannot fully verify the the ownership of your bitcoins.<br>
> I'm not sure the practicality of this in the long run, but it make=
s a<br>
> case for having an up-to-date non-SegWit node, although I think it'=
;s a<br>
> bit of a stretch.<br>
<br>
</span>Right.=C2=A0 Well, if I never upgrade to segwit, then there seems li=
ttle<br>
(zero?) risk of having any segwit tx in my tx chain.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you mean you wish to avoid receivin=
g UTXOs that have value that was at one point previously encumbered by a Se=
gWit output then no, you can't avoid that. No more than you can current=
ly avoid receiving BTC that were at one point in time encumbered by a P2SH =
output.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thus this would be a way I could continue with a lower bandwidth cap and<br=
>
also keep my coins "untainted", so to speak.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure about it for the long run either.=C2=A0 more just somethin=
g of<br>
an experiment.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">______________________________<wbr>=
_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--001a113d37c84be8f905543586f5--
|
