It seems like if they do not meet their required 55% of blocks signalling before block 961542, there will be one difficulty period where BIP 110 nodes require all blocks to signal and those that do not will be treated as invalid by BIP 110 nodes. Then there will be one difficulty period where BIP 110 activation is locked in, and then in the next difficulty period BIP 110 nodes will actually start enforcing the more strict rules about transactions as proposed in the BIP.
Yup, that’s how I understood it, too.
I'm confused about the necessity of the mandatory signalling period.
No idea why they decided that was a good idea. It makes a bit more sense for softforks that enable new features, because users want to be sure that the rules are being reliably enforced before risking funds by using the feature. Since RDTS is just aiming to reject some transactions and their blocks are valid to non-upgraded nodes anyway, I don’t see what benefit they thought it would have.
I had pointed out recently that “modified BIP 9 activation” was a tad underspecified and asked them to include more details on how their mandatory activation works. It seems that they just copied the mechanism of BIP 8.
Yup, that’s how I understood it, too.
No idea why they decided that was a good idea. It makes a bit more sense for softforks that enable new features, because users want to be sure that the rules are being reliably enforced before risking funds by using the feature. Since RDTS is just aiming to reject some transactions and their blocks are valid to non-upgraded nodes anyway, I don’t see what benefit they thought it would have.
I had pointed out recently that “modified BIP 9 activation” was a tad underspecified and asked them to include more details on how their mandatory activation works. It seems that they just copied the mechanism of BIP 8.