📅 Original date posted:2017-07-13 📝 Original message:> I believe that a good ...

Hampus Sjöberg [ARCHIVE] /

npub10uz…ln8t

2023-06-07 18:04:26

in reply to nevent1q…mn0u

📅 Original date posted:2017-07-13
📝 Original message:> 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:

> On 13 July 2017 at 03:04, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170713/17df3337/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub10uzud4rf4636awmfgvarmcfndcmdnv8rfd2y3rx2sqgckv9zur4qahln8t

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:04:26

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "1e985d065b94035da2f2e2bb448541f4e652fa5247639983cd34ae231b1e4181", "pubkey": "7f05c6d469aea3aebb69433a3de1336e36d9b0e34b54488cca80118b30a2e0ea", "created_at": 1686161066, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "c3417a9d5ad76947acf26c6783addd471ca3bcc5d3ed57deae65203b0eaf5238", "", "root" ], [ "e", "4454b8d59442f9caa0565fd03bdd90a572448c9d95595bba50fa7693b6d4a8a4", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "fd8c7b18ffe770eb7d313f47cd987b4c6042760ad1a956adaecb978131d46ede" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-13\n📝 Original message:\u003e I believe that a good reason not to wish your node to be segwit compliant\nis to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that segwit could\nrequire. Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok with \u003e1MB blocks, in case\nsegwit is activated and widely used. Users not interested in segwit\ntransactions may prefer to keep the cost of their node lower.\n\nIf the majority of the network decides to deploy SegWit, it would be in\nyour best interest to validate the SegWit transactions, because you might\nwill be downgraded to near-SPV node validation.\nIt would be okay to still run a \"non-SegWit\" node if there's no SegWit\ntransactions in the chain of transactions for your bitcoins, otherwise you\ncannot fully verify the the ownership of your bitcoins.\nI'm not sure the practicality of this in the long run, but it makes a case\nfor having an up-to-date non-SegWit node, although I think it's a bit of a\nstretch.\n\nGreetings\nHampus\n\n2017-07-13 15:11 GMT+02:00 Federico Tenga via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e:\n\n\u003e On 13 July 2017 at 03:04, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Can you explain why you wish to do this? It should have absolutely no\n\u003e\u003e adverse impact on you-- if you don't use segwit, you don't use it-- it\n\u003e\u003e may be the case that there is some confusion about the implications\n\u003e\u003e that I could clear up for you... or suggest alternatives that might\n\u003e\u003e achieve your goals.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe that a good reason not to wish your node to be segwit compliant\n\u003e is to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that segwit could\n\u003e require. Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok with \u003e1MB blocks, in case\n\u003e segwit is activated and widely used. Users not interested in segwit\n\u003e transactions may prefer to keep the cost of their node lower.\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170713/17df3337/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "aeb15d3a2958c2fa0414f6c11cd5066cb02e9db856829fdfc0bb491038caa4bae0768a314a1b60fd1eb008bc3c4ae623f380127e6ea58729673e15703e6060b9" }