📅 Original date posted:2017-07-13
📝 Original message: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.
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.
Dan Libby [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hm…jk43d
2023-06-07 18:04:26
in reply to nevent1q…g5ch
Author Public Key
npub1hm38d5dwxdq5zxlnv2qdfk3flecptqwl7g7u62ja0tr92d0hmrusejk43dPublished at
2023-06-07 18:04:26Event JSON
{
"id": "a76be4f4b92f548f7d4df711a4e57be8cbd5cfb52a8f77549ab54b6a666b27f8",
"pubkey": "bee276d1ae3341411bf36280d4da29fe701581dff23dcd2a5d7ac65535f7d8f9",
"created_at": 1686161066,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c3417a9d5ad76947acf26c6783addd471ca3bcc5d3ed57deae65203b0eaf5238",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1e985d065b94035da2f2e2bb448541f4e652fa5247639983cd34ae231b1e4181",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7f05c6d469aea3aebb69433a3de1336e36d9b0e34b54488cca80118b30a2e0ea"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-13\n📝 Original message:On 07/13/2017 06:39 AM, Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I believe that a good reason not to wish your node to be segwit\n\u003e compliant is to avoid having to deal with the extra bandwidth that\n\u003e segwit could require. Running a 0.14.2 node means being ok with \u003e1MB\n\u003e blocks, in case segwit is activated and widely used. Users not\n\u003e interested in segwit transactions may prefer to keep the cost of their\n\u003e node lower.\n\u003e \n\u003e If the majority of the network decides to deploy SegWit, it would be in\n\u003e your best interest to validate the SegWit transactions, because you\n\u003e might will be downgraded to near-SPV node validation.\n\u003e It would be okay to still run a \"non-SegWit\" node if there's no SegWit\n\u003e transactions in the chain of transactions for your bitcoins, otherwise\n\u003e you cannot fully verify the the ownership of your bitcoins.\n\u003e I'm not sure the practicality of this in the long run, but it makes a\n\u003e case for having an up-to-date non-SegWit node, although I think it's a\n\u003e bit of a stretch.\n\nRight. Well, if I never upgrade to segwit, then there seems little\n(zero?) risk of having any segwit tx in my tx chain.\n\nThus this would be a way I could continue with a lower bandwidth cap and\nalso keep my coins \"untainted\", so to speak.\n\nI'm not sure about it for the long run either. more just something of\nan experiment.",
"sig": "833e00bc9a354256f84ecbe092ae9904f28c1b05a684082eb7a70178242940090f12caaa6de6e03f1741a09b4f5f5a976ef834b44f8ee366200aa74b5ce82926"
}