📅 Original date posted:2017-06-11
📝 Original message:> I believe that means 80% of hashrate would need to be running BIP91 (signaling bit 4) by ~June 30 (so BIP91 locks in ~July 13, activates ~July 27), not "a few days ago" as I claimed. So, tight timing, but not impossible.
This is not needed, if segwit is locked in by aug 1 (with or without
bip91), no split will happen even if segwit is not active yet.
So the hashrate majority could avoid the split that way (or adopting bip148).
But it doesn't seem like they are planning to do this (with or without
bip91), the last thing I've heard, it's they will wait until
"immediately" before they signal sw (but there must be some language
barrier here, perhaps "immediately" and "inmediatamente" are false
friends). The reason why they will wait until "immediately" instead of
just starting to signal sw today, it's still unclear to me.
The other way to prevent the split is if bip148 users abort bip148
deployment, but unfortunately that seems increasingly unlikely.
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 18:02:52
in reply to nevent1q…24jr
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 18:02:52Event JSON
{
"id": "3034c0111f27eee5c80d0b526aba18a46b000adbaae11d4f3ccf74f923da2546",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686160972,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3e09960e11da1a4a7690780b1204590e9bee8464430f30f050ba8783715fd5f3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cc175d99db77121ee7a366912a5abe0353392cf27d102a3d80175dd7ee20b027",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dfc3b86290d962b72921536f7e3b66c03742b85abc914447a90507cc27ff8a4b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-11\n📝 Original message:\u003e I believe that means 80% of hashrate would need to be running BIP91 (signaling bit 4) by ~June 30 (so BIP91 locks in ~July 13, activates ~July 27), not \"a few days ago\" as I claimed. So, tight timing, but not impossible.\n\nThis is not needed, if segwit is locked in by aug 1 (with or without\nbip91), no split will happen even if segwit is not active yet.\nSo the hashrate majority could avoid the split that way (or adopting bip148).\n\nBut it doesn't seem like they are planning to do this (with or without\nbip91), the last thing I've heard, it's they will wait until\n\"immediately\" before they signal sw (but there must be some language\nbarrier here, perhaps \"immediately\" and \"inmediatamente\" are false\nfriends). The reason why they will wait until \"immediately\" instead of\njust starting to signal sw today, it's still unclear to me.\n\nThe other way to prevent the split is if bip148 users abort bip148\ndeployment, but unfortunately that seems increasingly unlikely.",
"sig": "769c476f9cea6d35a5bec14c0fab97e23a5863026996323e365c8c13bae5ff082e7ca33b89378b8b87cc2f009ff08a9de62edddbcc2074847432d5ac36cbd2b1"
}