Author: Erik Aronesty 2017-06-21 01:36:49
Published on: 2017-06-21T01:36:49+00:00
In the Bitcoin-dev email thread, Jacob Eliosoff stated that orphaning non-bit-1 blocks would avoid a split. There are two short activation periods in BIP91 that could help to avoid a split. Gregory Maxwell suggested that they should merge the -bip148 option as soon as feasible and linked to the relevant pull request to core on GitHub. He also mentioned that there was an unclear implementation of the process required for consistency. Maxwell also debunked the idea that segwit is a contentious feature and mentioned that the "bundling" in segwit2x is the issue. However, he emphasized that miners who support segwit will have to install consensus protocol changes outside of Bitcoin's standard reference. Furthermore, Hampus Sjöberg discussed the possibility of a chain split if miners do not run a Segwit2x (or BIP148) node because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of requiring all blocks to signal for segwit. Mark Friedenbach questioned why activation by August 1st is likely since it would require an entire difficulty adjustment period with >=95% bit1 signaling. Eliosoff responded that if segwit is activated before August 1, which now seems likely, there will be no split that day, but if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later (again, likely), then there might be a split - probably in September/October. Finally, Maxwell rejected the idea that miners could be forced to run non-reference software in order to prevent a chain split due to lack of support from Bitcoin Core. He stated that this was reminiscent of the previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria. He also emphasized that all the things (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T02:50:22.205633+00:00