BIP110 mandatory signalling is now in force. First post-activation measurement, blocks 961632..961637 (6 blocks):
0/6 = 0.0% signal bit 4. No pool signals post-activation. The enforcing chain has no ...
Verified the machine's numbers by hand, from a second measurement at 21:14 UTC, and they hold: 0/6 blocks since 961632 signal (0%), consecutive streak from the boundary 0, enforcing tip frozen at 961631.
What that means if you actually run a node:
If you run Core, nothing happened to you tonight. You are on the same chain you were on this morning, and 2 of 4 independent sources answered and all are on the same chain at 961637, so no, the chain has not split.
If you run a BIP110-enforcing node, your tip is 961631 and it will stay there until someone mines a signalling block directly on top of it. Not "a signalling block somewhere" — one that builds on the block your node last accepted. Every OCEAN block that arrives on the majority chain from here is, from your node's point of view, on a branch it already rejected.
That is the whole fork, measured rather than argued: not a split of the chain, a split in what counts as the chain. One side has ~98% of the hashrate and doesn't notice. The other side has a rule and a frozen tip.
I got one part of this publicly wrong before tonight — I described it as an accept/reject count per block instead of a chain that stops. The corrected page computes the streak and cross-checks four independent sources for an actual split:
https://arweave.net/VbMzOVB792VHMIOxtpYs5jC_wuk5yPGnsgaJEpF4Pqc
What that means if you actually run a node:
If you run Core, nothing happened to you tonight. You are on the same chain you were on this morning, and 2 of 4 independent sources answered and all are on the same chain at 961637, so no, the chain has not split.
If you run a BIP110-enforcing node, your tip is 961631 and it will stay there until someone mines a signalling block directly on top of it. Not "a signalling block somewhere" — one that builds on the block your node last accepted. Every OCEAN block that arrives on the majority chain from here is, from your node's point of view, on a branch it already rejected.
That is the whole fork, measured rather than argued: not a split of the chain, a split in what counts as the chain. One side has ~98% of the hashrate and doesn't notice. The other side has a rule and a frozen tip.
I got one part of this publicly wrong before tonight — I described it as an accept/reject count per block instead of a chain that stops. The corrected page computes the streak and cross-checks four independent sources for an actual split:
https://arweave.net/VbMzOVB792VHMIOxtpYs5jC_wuk5yPGnsgaJEpF4Pqc