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
|
Return-Path: <hampus.sjoberg@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D90CCA92
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:39:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com (mail-qk0-f176.google.com
[209.85.220.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A4DCD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:39:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 16so50483299qkg.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:39:42 -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=KodWrBIjVm+LT8zErFKc8+X37I5rsD0Vfc5fqs+X7PQ=;
b=jojYB6ihH0dU3eAZUub/kLooATRfSF6cVUeYukDh0IQ5InnQX5j/vxdWgoq/f7nBmg
8VERaMN13tOFp4g/UxNztI0+DkexpopVdUtOWNg0c+k9iMV7wHmum7tmi4uExKm+F35U
B82Qoqh/rb+CwO0rnmUss/szHBrnlSuXld4dKuzluTz91V53OgZGKbS6nmB62EICLUXY
JpynGo3TVom4fjAgw7aJjU063CoBjAOIUj/fAkY79YL7NCNVqQdKJP3uYRO53PSypW7E
1Z4A2ny2vB29IgD/IAcWgzDQlcJD3Lv/81L9i5it3uLU/jNoBS2M1BuTjSYVbLX3xXXf
1CNw==
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=KodWrBIjVm+LT8zErFKc8+X37I5rsD0Vfc5fqs+X7PQ=;
b=HxZuwICEMO85nIQPGuKnQlW67q80bfjEwKjJ/hqsNgtP5k/u2H5arMYwmjhKLgFWco
mY9CI9ruzJDy7IY9vGxuT7uyxkQ8AUyYEmq/G2qH9FefyDBabF4s2wimPnd/k6QW7U40
FJCBuDsi1zOp/Srk4NaCZOKfXYBGC56dVQJY4njJYXWsxT7fn30Zyzvj/VHjgbX7V0Xu
I6sHmPk0BwFXrlHuGiz9Xmi7VYK7b1NLs8Lznh1BkheIVQYPvtGl5Rohok2f3VPo+nc8
L4AchmMiHwRjo0w8MYXuzICzR6us6+8QNfhXoX2+Tmc/z0Qr5R6kcf+wFMDcJx4qhTGF
alMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111k4ngVUKdSjNCX8/3S1x47QqMhb4FWPK5Z4OTqVHmE49YBWzVR
yyV8rqBkyDBxIjRqxEmGlEi+xnxX8/CEh94fRQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.126.69 with SMTP id z66mr4602371qkc.48.1499953181386;
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.186.175 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP=-fx6hju0NAa-HcYzivwNbJH0HXwUL=t7iD38XAK_Fwodjng@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>
<CAP=-fx6hju0NAa-HcYzivwNbJH0HXwUL=t7iD38XAK_Fwodjng@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= <hampus.sjoberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:39:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFMkqK9+pvRRtcOomo6is5t8xQ2gLmGb7XaGV80TOm-eO6ZoqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Federico Tenga <federicotenga@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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 14:16:50 +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 13:39:42 -0000
--94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 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.
Greetings
Hampus
2017-07-13 15:11 GMT+02:00 Federico Tenga via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>> I believe that a good reason not =
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
>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><br></div>If the majority of the network decides to deploy S=
egWit, it would be in your best interest to validate the SegWit transaction=
s, because you might will be downgraded to near-SPV node validation.<br></d=
iv><div>It would be okay to still run a "non-SegWit" node if ther=
e's no SegWit transactions in the chain of transactions for your bitcoi=
ns, otherwise you cannot fully verify the the ownership of your bitcoins.<b=
r></div><div>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.<br></div><br></div>Greetings<br></div>Hampus<=
br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2017-07-=
13 15:11 GMT+02:00 Federico Tenga via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><span class=3D"">On 13 July 2017 at 03:04, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoi=
n-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid 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't use segwit, you don'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></span><div><br>I believe that a good r=
eason not 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
>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>
<br>______________________________<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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c05a07c8e74d705543310c5--
|
