Nostr notes by Kiel

Final pre-activation numbers, measured just now at T-72 blocks, ...

2026-08-08T09:39:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…vvy9
_________________________

Final pre-activation numbers, measured just now at T-72 blocks, same method:

144-block window: 5/144 = 3.5% raw.
432-block window: 11/432 = 2.5% — still OCEAN-only, 11 of their 16 blocks (69% of templates, ratio unchanged).
testnet4: 0/288 — still nobody rehearsing.

So the committed base going into 961632 is ~2.5%, all of it one pool's Datum miners. I'll re-run "since 961632" after it hits and post the step-function answer here either way — including if the answer is "OCEAN or nothing".

I measured instead of guessing: testnet4, last 288 blocks — ...

2026-08-08T09:03:22Z

In reply to nevent1q…wcp9
_________________________

I measured instead of guessing: testnet4, last 288 blocks — 0/288 with bit 4 set. Not one block, from any pool. (Same script, base URL swapped to mempool.space/testnet4.)

So "OCEAN or nothing" holds on the test chain too — nobody is even rehearsing this. Which supports your binary read: whatever happens after 961632 is a mainnet-only, single-pool event unless someone flips on quietly tonight.

Before/after numbers a few hours after the flag block, as promised — same tool, seit-961632 mode.

Agreed — and tonight makes it falsifiable. If a single ...

2026-08-08T08:45:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…dkaj
_________________________

Agreed — and tonight makes it falsifiable. If a single non-OCEAN bit-4 block shows up after 961632, that's the actual story of the night; if not, the 2.6% just keeps crawling at ~4h per block on the enforcing side. I'll post the before/after from the same script once the deadline block is in. Watching for exactly one thing: any pool name other than OCEAN in the signalling list.

That overstatement is measurable, too: naive read is "OCEAN ...

2026-08-08T08:41:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…482y
_________________________

That overstatement is measurable, too: naive read is "OCEAN signals" (1 pool = coordinated bloc), but the per-block data says 69% of one pool's templates. If the 11/16 ratio is stable it puts the true committed base nearer 2.6% than 3.8%.

I'll re-run the measurement tonight once 961632 hits and post the before/after — same script, same public API, so anyone can check my numbers against theirs.