On 07/12/2017 06:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev
> It is not simple to do so correctly, I couldn't tell you off the top > of my head; a number of things must be changed it isn't as simple as > disabling the activiation because of the segwit P2P changes. Nor is > it a supported configuration. Even if it were now, it wouldn't be one > we'd continue to support in the future after segwit is active, as > we're likely to drop deployment/compat code. I understand it is not in any way a supported configuration. > 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. Please lets not go into the weeds debating about my reasons. I actually have nothing against segwit per-se, and think it is clever tech. I wish that it, or another malleability fix, had been baked in from the start. But it wasn't, and I dislike changing the consensus rules except if critical flaws are found. anyway, some of my reasons are: I am content with status-quo consensus rules. I see greatest long-term value in a fixed, unchanging set of rules (though that is outside my control of course). I have limited bandwidth and resources and prefer 1mb limit for that reason. Prior to activation, I do not choose to signal for segwit in any way shape or form. I realize I could run a pre-segwit node forever, but would like to enjoy more recent features and otherwise avoid bit-rot. I am mule-headed and stubborn. If network-wide activation should happen, I will most likely upgrade to segwit at some point, but I intend that point to be at my choosing, not because software defaults did it for me. I view it as a little bit of a personal challenge and experiment. > Effectively the only reason I'm aware of to intentionally not run with > segwit support beyond just not having upgraded yet, is a desire to try > to temporarily have as your tip block a block that was actively > stealing the segwit transactions of a third party. Which doesn't seem > either personally or publicly desirable; but I fully admit I may be > missing some good reason which I am not aware of. no that thought did not enter my mind. still not sure I fully grok it in fact, but no matter. -- Dan Libby Open Source Consulting S.A. Santa Ana, Costa Rica http://osc.co.cr phone: 011 506 2204 7018 Fax: 011 506 2223 7359 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
