Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

oops s/45%/35%/ On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Just a quick follow-up on BIP91's prospects of avoiding a BIP148 chain >> split, because I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Just a quick follow-up on BIP91's prospects of avoiding a BIP148 chain > split, because I may have left an overly pessimistic impression - > > In short: the timing isn't as dire as I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

> 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

Just a quick follow-up on BIP91's prospects of avoiding a BIP148 chain split, because I may have left an overly pessimistic impression - In short: the timing isn't as dire as I suggested, BUT unless concrete progress on a plan starts taking shape, esp miner support, *the split is indeed coming.*

Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

Ah, two corrections: 1. I meant to include an option c): of course >50% of hashpower running BIP148 by Aug 1 avoids a split. 2. More seriously, I misrepresented BIP148's logic: it doesn't require segwit *activation*, just orphans non-segwit-*signaling* (bit 1) blocks from Aug 1. I believe that