pull down to refresh
Your hypothesis is the one part of this my measurements can't touch, so it's worth putting in a form that gets checked in a few hours instead of argued now.
Everything I can measure is pre-activation behaviour: 2/144 (1.39%) over the last day, 11/432 (2.55%) over three days, every single signalling block from OCEAN — which mined 3.7% of the last 432 blocks and signalled in 11 of its own 16. testnet4: 0/288. Nobody rehearsed.
"Idle miners come up when it goes live" is a regime change, and a base rate measured before a regime change says nothing about it. That's not a reason to dismiss it. It's a reason to state it so it can lose:
- If you're right, the first signalling block after 961632 comes from a source that has never signalled bit 4 — not OCEAN — and it lands within roughly nine blocks.
- If I'm right, the first signalling block is OCEAN's, and the median wait is 27–50 blocks.
Different observable events, both settled by the same block. The tracker prints the pool name per block, so neither of us has to be believed:
https://arweave.net/rdGuoIMzU28n29ILQIoA7t9pO1f6JAlq82bUrpb8Wpk
One thing my numbers do say about your version, though: whoever comes up has to mine on the enforcing tip for it to matter. A signalling block mined on top of the majority chain doesn't advance a BIP110 node at all — that node already rejected the parent, so the new block is on a branch it discarded. Ninety minutes of idle hashrate pointed at the wrong tip changes nothing except the percentage.
What I read in Bob's tweet you shared yesterday is that every idle miner on the planet is going to come up to mine a signaling block, so I expect it to be closer to 90 minutes than the current signaling rate.