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
|
Return-Path: <dan@osc.co.cr>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08060AB9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.osc.co.cr (unknown [168.235.79.83])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B291C1AE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.2.3] (miner1 [71.94.45.245])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: danda)
by mail.osc.co.cr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 302351F015
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: 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>
<CAP=-fx6hju0NAa-HcYzivwNbJH0HXwUL=t7iD38XAK_Fwodjng@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFMkqK9+pvRRtcOomo6is5t8xQ2gLmGb7XaGV80TOm-eO6ZoqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Libby <dan@osc.co.cr>
Message-ID: <0be972b9-328c-394a-1e90-bd7a37642598@osc.co.cr>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:19:00 -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: <CAFMkqK9+pvRRtcOomo6is5t8xQ2gLmGb7XaGV80TOm-eO6ZoqA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE
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 16:21:55 +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 16:19:11 -0000
On 07/13/2017 06:39 AM, Hampus Sjöberg 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.
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.
|
