+Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>

+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org

+ [172.17.192.35])

+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E098EE

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:06:03 +0000 (UTC)

+Received: by mail-ua0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q15so48468940uaa.2

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ 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: <CAAUaCyiwnspvJ9HY41GK8tMsA4ezpFPR1Ka9upik6UwsYBASnQ@mail.gmail.com>

+References: <CAAUaCygRaXNX5xWuka1xrrXwKv1tqevT9-cHd-5mh_AkHpg9gA@mail.gmail.com>

+ <CAAUaCyh_uBcZ7ntbLtOeOAK-6nt2Rx-cxx27QaiXRKkije21AQ@mail.gmail.com>

+ <CAAUaCyiwnspvJ9HY41GK8tMsA4ezpFPR1Ka9upik6UwsYBASnQ@mail.gmail.com>

+From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>

+Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:06:01 +0200

+Message-ID: <CABm2gDoS0eiiabxbfQc4Cc7Jqk-XfDDL6QdGhDn-TzrDpd8Hfw@mail.gmail.com>

+To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>

+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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>

+List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>

+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>

+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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.

+