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. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
