> 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