Re: [bitcoin-dev] how to disable segwit in my build?

From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail•com>
To: Dan Libby <dan@osc•co.cr>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] how to disable segwit in my build?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:35:46 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADL_X_cZc4K3k=JzVES7Jba6qqZwv0Lx7opCi8eL_GM5M01Y8A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0be972b9-328c-394a-1e90-bd7a37642598@osc.co.cr>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1981 bytes --]

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 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.
>
>
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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2854 bytes --]