Of course I do . Did you read my original comment or what ? I was sardonic after that because of the stupid cunty shit morphy linked . <| sep |> Peke , that specific colour mutation occurs only in Pekingese . <| sep |> Here is the post for archival purposes Author shadouts Content We ' re coming up on the one week mark for the segwit signalling period , and signalling has seemed to have leveled off at only 20 %. This is quite discouraging since even those favoring larger blocks were expressing support for segwit . Can the validity of miner signalling , in its current form , be trusted to produce the accurate desires of the network ? The 95 % threshold for softfork acceptance could be too high . Granted , it is important that a vast majority of the network supports any changes to the block chain . This threshold is actually higher than 95 % since a 95 % acceptance would assume that 100 % of mining nodes are aware of , or care about , signalling for a change or actively not signalling against a change . If only 6 % abstain from the vote , then the change will be blocked . We can see now that a hardfork to resolve this update may have been disastrous since only about 32 % of nodes according to bitnodes . 21 . co have upgraded to 0 . 13 . 1 . Of course , it is likely a good portion of these noncurrent clients are not mining nodes . Should it be considered an active vote against a change if a mining node upgrades to the current core version and does not signal the change ? Perhaps abstaining votes should be ignored . Mining nodes that cannot decide one way or another cannot be assumed to have an opinion on the current state of bitcoin . Abstaining votes could be accounted for if there was a way to signal against a change . Each proposed softfork update could have two flag settings , one for and one against .