From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E098EE for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:06:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f172.google.com (mail-ua0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 333F8EB for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:06:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q15so48468940uaa.2 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QFugQU2StgLeDX+/0mn7H+tIgMlzPHDzSIyQGsiXaKM=; b=sUFCQmOyK/PB5TvE0Di1bl4WC7/4sWXAJSqww0XJBVmMAb1Isr3RpRLuqVnPTgs68N iDy41hYKguY7TsVxUQJx7hRqDNoSURJn59EBA+8+lNBI0kfL5pS4+yXXbwYJNEPAEKvy /fHh+P3NSmbbstTDpvqp4qJXKxr/sAR+iHIhFaqU/zub3VSdNz8pSvT0Q3nuwKcynoqH 2WzbWzc+rB2LsQqqpCnSB/7gQ2mTUAxP61h5rLhR5VU6l9OY1Jyy0AgGg7LEz7SNxEO2 5UFXFJQvdQu9puQ4PRZGB6QC8jpXes5LqbmeNxrM5P8fYv6AZTVeRWkqHIqJwXDLh6Qx UYFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QFugQU2StgLeDX+/0mn7H+tIgMlzPHDzSIyQGsiXaKM=; b=rE46y7ctQ0Ab0p3dRcPF5Jqe8DuE4yreOE+I1i7htLLxAbG5/8RfzYPd2UM4isaob5 TuPJtnhJTlvGR9uzw2p75QAg8XPKo/deDr5q/60YWJlnna0hWyb0I3FaC6QcqO5Re+1C I0eOTQWgbJ4SN7YXzlPFiLYh/6+/96jbDyFax8khsf7nGADrR1P1VG/SMoMRonnCR/10 5DFs3r9Xo58xSwmeww3mQQZpI78Nu0nel7l1bld/80jJnhkIc5Q2LgWpeIwzQUUdM+9p u8THB3F8izXeKhIp7IyQ4+7LHXVJmBy1MebmJ+I3bH1891hfbbegdV5LmkK2EQZQDT8i IclQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAfKVzLcWvqMqTysG/NQ8y71JKCh4/rdAgnpc2ZVFY5OA2iFdP2 Ve5TnSVDuFMdsdXpq33FRSom8gBSBgw3 X-Received: by 10.159.32.194 with SMTP id 60mr7128896uaa.142.1497193562329; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.52.213 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:06:01 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jacob Eliosoff Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:06:03 -0000 > 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.