MIME-Version: 1.0
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"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] how to disable segwit in my build?
Precedence: list

--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">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</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>
&gt;&gt; I believe that a good reason not to wish your node to be segwit<br=
>
&gt; compliant is to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that<br>
&gt; segwit could require.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok=
 with &gt;1MB<br>
&gt; blocks, in case segwit is activated and widely used. Users not<br>
&gt; interested in segwit transactions may prefer to keep the cost of their=
<br>
&gt; node lower.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; If the majority of the network decides to deploy SegWit, it would be i=
n<br>
&gt; your best interest to validate the SegWit transactions, because you<br=
>
&gt; might will be downgraded to near-SPV node validation.<br>
&gt; It would be okay to still run a &quot;non-SegWit&quot; node if there&#=
39;s no SegWit<br>
&gt; transactions in the chain of transactions for your bitcoins, otherwise=
<br>
&gt; you cannot fully verify the the ownership of your bitcoins.<br>
&gt; I&#39;m not sure the practicality of this in the long run, but it make=
s a<br>
&gt; case for having an up-to-date non-SegWit node, although I think it&#39=
;s a<br>
&gt; 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&#39;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 &quot;untainted&quot;, so to speak.<br>
<br>
I&#39;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--