About the "Unknown block versions being mined!" warning

[JayJuanGee]

O ok, well thought they were implementing a  different version of segwit, seeing i read core's version needed 95% signaling for it to go active, but segwit2x is doing it with ~ 80%?

Segwit2x is using BIP 91. BIP 91 specifies that 269 of the last 336 blocks (~80% of the last 336 blocks) must signal for BIP 91 on bit 4. Once there is enough signalling, it will be locked in for a short grace period of 336 blocks. Then it will activate. Once BIP 91 activates, all blocks must signal for segwit on bit 1. This means that segwit will then activate via its original deployment on bit 1. Segwit2x is not actually activating a different segwit, they are activating something else which will force the activation of segwit.
 

Is there a website where we could watch specifically this dynamic?  the 269 of the last 336 blocks?

I have been watching coin.dance, but that is not very specific since it has one category that is looking at the past 144 blocks.

https://coin.dance/blocks

[1714890621]

1714890621

[xbiv2]

Just setup bitcoin-core 2014 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.9.1 while it is available for download.
Bitcoin-core developers not trustable anymore, too many political interests, money and speculations.

[panju1]

It is a relief to know that this message can be safely ignored. Too much FUD is going around these days.
People tend to try and exploit the panic around the hard fork.

[achow101]

It seems a little bazaar that achow101 is complaining about an 80% acceptance for SegWit with BIP91

Where am I complaining about the 80% activation threshold? The purpose of this thread is to inform people about the warning that they will see in Core, not complaining about BIP 91.

when MOST of Core is going for BIP148/BIP149 that requires NO signalling for SegWit at all - the 95% activation has long been discarded by MOST of Core.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

The table does not explain any nuance and conditions under which people find BIPs 148 or 149 as preferred.

If the majority of Core actually supported BIPs 148 and 149, then BIP 148 support would have been merged into Core, but it has not.

BIP91 is built off Bitcoin Core code - so even BIP91 will "allow you to choose the chain to use" since that function is old.

btc1 is the client, not BIP 91. BIP 91 is the proposal. Anyways, by Core, I mean any derivative of Core.

[Meuh6879]

If the majority of Core actually supported BIPs 148 and 149, then BIP 148 support would have been merged into Core, but it has not.

BIP148 have been introduce to late to be accepted with simple developper time line (min. 3 months, better = 6 months).

BIP149 will be merged depend of what append on november (and before ...).
Developpers are agree with the UASF when MASF fail.

[NLNico]

Is there a website where we could watch specifically this dynamic?  the 269 of the last 336 blocks?

Yes, don't use coin.dance, use https://www.xbt.eu instead.

It is not "last 336 blocks", but a "336 blocks lock-in period", if we don't succeed in these 336 blocks, we have to wait for them to finish and try again next 336 blocks, etc.

[kano]

...

when MOST of Core is going for BIP148/BIP149 that requires NO signalling for SegWit at all - the 95% activation has long been discarded by MOST of Core.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

The table does not explain any nuance and conditions under which people find BIPs 148 or 149 as preferred.

If the majority of Core actually supported BIPs 148 and 149, then BIP 148 support would have been merged into Core, but it has not.
...

So you're somehow saying that when the majority of core, themselves, puts there name down there for BIP148 or BIP149 saying either:

"Acceptable" it is a workable solution
"Prefer" it is what he would choose if it was only up to him and no outside influences

They are somehow NOT claiming that they are happy with the NO signalling in BIP148/BIP149? Yet 80% signalling for BIP91 is somehow considered unacceptable?

Seriously are you that confused about the meaning of written English? Or are you just brainwashed by Core propaganda?

[achow101]

So you're somehow saying that when the majority of core, themselves, puts there name down there for BIP148 or BIP149 saying either:

"Acceptable" it is a workable solution
"Prefer" it is what he would choose if it was only up to him and no outside influences

They are somehow NOT claiming that they are happy with the NO signalling in BIP148/BIP149? Yet 80% signalling for BIP91 is somehow considered unacceptable?

You are completely missing the nuance. Very few of the Core developers have said that they support BIPs 148/149 with the current political situation. Re-read what those statements say: "Prefer" it is what he would choose if it was only up to him and no outside influences. That means that if BIP 148/149 existed in a vacuum with no outside influence (e.g. from miners) and everyone went along with it, they would prefer that as it is an activation via flag day. Are you seriously that confused about the meaning of written English? Are you seriously misconstruing "prefer" and "acceptable" as meaning "want it now as it is now" even when the definition on the page says otherwise?

Since BIP 148/149 do not exist in a vacuum and they are not the proposals accepted by everyone, nearly all Core developers do not endorse it. There have been three attempts to merge BIP 148 into Core, and all of them have been rejected by the very same people you claim are endorsing BIP 148. Those Core developers are not saying that they are happy with BIP 148/149 as they are now, only that if those were the only two proposals and existed in a vacuum and without any contentiousness that they would then support them.

[kano]

So you're somehow saying that when the majority of core, themselves, puts there name down there for BIP148 or BIP149 saying either:

"Acceptable" it is a workable solution
"Prefer" it is what he would choose if it was only up to him and no outside influences

They are somehow NOT claiming that they are happy with the NO signalling in BIP148/BIP149? Yet 80% signalling for BIP91 is somehow considered unacceptable?

You are completely missing the nuance. Very few of the Core developers have said that they support BIPs 148/149 with the current political situation. Re-read what those statements say: "Prefer" it is what he would choose if it was only up to him and no outside influences. That means that if BIP 148/149 existed in a vacuum with no outside influence (e.g. from miners) and everyone went along with it, they would prefer that as it is an activation via flag day. Are you seriously that confused about the meaning of written English? Are you seriously misconstruing "prefer" and "acceptable" as meaning "want it now as it is now" even when the definition on the page says otherwise?

Since BIP 148/149 do not exist in a vacuum and they are not the proposals accepted by everyone, nearly all Core developers do not endorse it. There have been three attempts to merge BIP 148 into Core, and all of them have been rejected by the very same people you claim are endorsing BIP 148. Those Core developers are not saying that they are happy with BIP 148/149 as they are now, only that if those were the only two proposals and existed in a vacuum and without any contentiousness that they would then support them.

So basically you are saying that page is a complete waste of time since no one can make any sense of it, other than to mean SegWit's wet dream?

It's all pointless in a vacuum not relevant to any reality?
OK get someone to delete it since there's no point to it ...


... yet you still seem to have skipped over:
"Acceptable" it is a workable solution
in your reply ... ... ... ...

[Xester]

If you are using Bitcoin Core and derivative software, then you may have noticed that there is now a warning that states:

Warning: Unknown block versions being mined! It's possible unknown rules are in effect

This warning will appear at the top of the Bitcoin Core GUI and reported in the errors or warnings field of the getinfo, getnetworkinfo, and getmininginfo RPC commands.

This warning is triggered when more than 50 of the last 100 blocks have a version number that Bitcoin Core does not expect. Currently that is being triggered by miners mining for BIP 91 (aka the first half of segwit2x). These miners are setting bit 4 of the block version field, and Bitcoin Core does not expect this to be set.

The version numbers that Bitcoin Core expects are 0x20000000 (536870912) and 0x20000002 (536870914). The unexpected version numbers currently are 0x20000012 (536870930) and 0x20000010 (536870928).

Currently this warning is benign as there is no fork and no new network rules have activated. Your coins are not at risk.

I thought we will be in trouble again. I read your post and I thought that another problem has risen that will again cause bitcoin to fall in price. But when I finished your comment and I read the line " your coins are not at risk" my mind became at ease again. I just hope that the core developers will also agree to BIP 91 so that  there will be no more bitcoin split that will occur in the coming days.

[B3dr0ck]

I see this error as well - that is why I'm on this thread, reading through it ....

I'm trying to reconcile this thread with Coinbase's recent email.  Are we talking about here the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) that Coinbase is referring to?

Coinbase also refers to User Activated Hard Fork (UAHF) that is scheduled for Aug, 1st.  They are not supporting this fork.

This error is related to the UASF - which does not require a software upgrade on wallets of core 14+ (or some 13s versions), and Coinbase is supporting?

[tspacepilot]

I see this error as well - that is why I'm on this thread, reading through it ....

I'm trying to reconcile this thread with Coinbase's recent email.  Are we talking about here the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) that Coinbase is referring to?

Coinbase also refers to User Activated Hard Fork (UAHF) that is scheduled for Aug, 1st.  They are not supporting this fork.

This error is related to the UASF - which does not require a software upgrade on wallets of core 14+ (or some 13s versions), and Coinbase is supporting?

Is this coinbase message since we started seeing the BIP 91 signaling?  What is coinbase saying in their message?  Some of us on the thread aren't coinbase customers.

[B3dr0ck]

I see this error as well - that is why I'm on this thread, reading through it ....

I'm trying to reconcile this thread with Coinbase's recent email.  Are we talking about here the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) that Coinbase is referring to?

Coinbase also refers to User Activated Hard Fork (UAHF) that is scheduled for Aug, 1st.  They are not supporting this fork.

This error is related to the UASF - which does not require a software upgrade on wallets of core 14+ (or some 13s versions), and Coinbase is supporting?

Is this coinbase message since we started seeing the BIP 91 signaling?  What is coinbase saying in their message?  Some of us on the thread aren't coinbase customers.

First I saw the email was yesterday.  Here's the email:
"The User Activated Hard Fork (UAHF) is a proposal to increase the Bitcoin block size scheduled to activate on August 1. The UAHF is incompatible with the current Bitcoin ruleset and will create a separate blockchain. Should UAHF activate on August 1, Coinbase will not support the new blockchain or its associated coin.

The User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) is a proposal to adopt Segregated Witness on the Bitcoin blockchain and could result in network instability. It is scheduled to activate at the same time as the UAHF.

To ensure the safety of customers’ funds, we will temporarily suspend bitcoin deposits, withdrawals, and buy/sell starting approximately 4 hours before activation of either fork."

[achow101]

I see this error as well - that is why I'm on this thread, reading through it ....

I'm trying to reconcile this thread with Coinbase's recent email.  Are we talking about here the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) that Coinbase is referring to?

Coinbase also refers to User Activated Hard Fork (UAHF) that is scheduled for Aug, 1st.  They are not supporting this fork.

This error is related to the UASF - which does not require a software upgrade on wallets of core 14+ (or some 13s versions), and Coinbase is supporting?

This thread is talking about neither of those things. BIP 91 is unrelated to UASF or UAHF. Neither the UASF or the UAHF will trigger the warning that you see here as they do not do miner signaling; rather they activate via flag day. However BIP 91 activates via miner signaling, so we get the warning here about that.

[yg10]

Hmm..
I started to get this message @ 40 of 100 blocks.

Code:

2017-07-15 18:54:41 UpdateTip: 47 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-15 18:54:42 UpdateTip: 48 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-15 18:54:43 UpdateTip: 49 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-15 18:54:44 UpdateTip: 50 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-15 18:54:45 UpdateTip: 50 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-15 18:54:45 UpdateTip: 49 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version

and the number of such blocks is growing:

Code:

2017-07-20 07:07:26 UpdateTip: 94 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-20 07:18:15 UpdateTip: 94 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-20 07:25:33 UpdateTip: 94 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-20 07:31:27 UpdateTip: 94 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-20 07:31:48 UpdateTip: 94 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version
2017-07-20 07:39:52 UpdateTip: 94 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version

[Meuh6879]

You has an old Bitcoin Core (without Segwit recognize).
Only 80 blocks are with an exotic version ...

https://www.xbt.eu/ (144 Blocks)

Code:

2017-07-20 08:45:34 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000007a3eed0bbf2bc517760e19aedc235fca12738ea089f2bd height=476675 version=0x20000002 log2_work=86.79112 tx=240559896 date='2017-07-20 08:42:36' progress=0.999998 cache=215.0MiB(103467tx) warning='83 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'

[yg10]

You has an old Bitcoin Core (without Segwit recognize).
Only 80 blocks are with an exotic version ...

https://www.xbt.eu/ (144 Blocks)

http://imagize[Suspicious link removed]ageshack.us/a/img924/8840/iqunLG.png

Code:

2017-07-20 08:45:34 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000007a3eed0bbf2bc517760e19aedc235fca12738ea089f2bd height=476675 version=0x20000002 log2_work=86.79112 tx=240559896 date='2017-07-20 08:42:36' progress=0.999998 cache=215.0MiB(103467tx) warning='83 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'

Yes. I am running v0.12.1.0. Compiling 0.14.2 on FreeBSD is a headache.

[benjamin07]

ty achow101 for the explanation. Very concise, complete and straight to the point explaining the Warning message. You should probably append with: Minimum IQ>0 required lol

[tspacepilot]

Anyone know what that small percentage of blocks signaling with a 30000000 is about?  I saw one or two blocks with that version number yesterday and I couldn't find any BIPs or docs referencing that number.

[xyzzy099]

Anyone know what that small percentage of blocks signaling with a 30000000 is about?  I saw one or two blocks with that version number yesterday and I couldn't find any BIPs or docs referencing that number.

"Bitcoin Classic" nodes mine blocks with version 0x30000000 by default, if I am not mistaken.