MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR1aGOpVoLyGWtO=Q5XU04gBMBEQARPtxMe4WnwQ2CO5w@mail.gmail.com>
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: Federico Tenga <federicotenga@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:11:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP=-fx6hju0NAa-HcYzivwNbJH0HXwUL=t7iD38XAK_Fwodjng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c060fd846d691055432abe3"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] how to disable segwit in my build?
Precedence: list

--94eb2c060fd846d691055432abe3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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.

--94eb2c060fd846d691055432abe3
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1=
3 July 2017 at 03:04, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Can you explain why you wish to do this?=C2=A0 It should have absolutely no=
<br>
adverse impact on you-- if you don&#39;t use segwit, you don&#39;t use it--=
 it<br>
may be the case that there is some confusion about the implications<br>
that I could clear up for you... or suggest alternatives that might<br>
achieve your goals.<br></blockquote><div><br>I believe that a good reason n=
ot 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
&gt;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. <br></div></div></div></div>

--94eb2c060fd846d691055432abe3--