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
|
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 C2DA099F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:05:13 +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 B0D8314E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:05:12 +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 DA3A01F015;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
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>
From: Dan Libby <dan@osc.co.cr>
Message-ID: <a09c16fc-528d-da3f-1ea2-18009c57af13@osc.co.cr>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:05:01 -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: <CAAS2fgR1aGOpVoLyGWtO=Q5XU04gBMBEQARPtxMe4WnwQ2CO5w@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 16:15:19 +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 16:05:13 -0000
On 07/12/2017 06:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev
> It is not simple to do so correctly, I couldn't tell you off the top
> of my head; a number of things must be changed it isn't as simple as
> disabling the activiation because of the segwit P2P changes. Nor is
> it a supported configuration. Even if it were now, it wouldn't be one
> we'd continue to support in the future after segwit is active, as
> we're likely to drop deployment/compat code.
I understand it is not in any way a supported configuration.
> 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.
Please lets not go into the weeds debating about my reasons.
I actually have nothing against segwit per-se, and think it is clever
tech. I wish that it, or another malleability fix, had been baked in
from the start. But it wasn't, and I dislike changing the consensus
rules except if critical flaws are found.
anyway, some of my reasons are:
I am content with status-quo consensus rules.
I see greatest long-term value in a fixed, unchanging set of rules
(though that is outside my control of course).
I have limited bandwidth and resources and prefer 1mb limit for that reason.
Prior to activation, I do not choose to signal for segwit in any way
shape or form.
I realize I could run a pre-segwit node forever, but would like to enjoy
more recent features and otherwise avoid bit-rot.
I am mule-headed and stubborn. If network-wide activation should
happen, I will most likely upgrade to segwit at some point, but I intend
that point to be at my choosing, not because software defaults did it
for me.
I view it as a little bit of a personal challenge and experiment.
> Effectively the only reason I'm aware of to intentionally not run with
> segwit support beyond just not having upgraded yet, is a desire to try
> to temporarily have as your tip block a block that was actively
> stealing the segwit transactions of a third party. Which doesn't seem
> either personally or publicly desirable; but I fully admit I may be
> missing some good reason which I am not aware of.
no that thought did not enter my mind. still not sure I fully grok it
in fact, but no matter.
--
Dan Libby
Open Source Consulting S.A.
Santa Ana, Costa Rica
http://osc.co.cr
phone: 011 506 2204 7018
Fax: 011 506 2223 7359
|
