oh lauda.. havnt you seen the other plan.. intentionally blacklist known block producers to make sgwit nodes only see blocks from sgwit supporters to get the 95% trigger.
That still won't really cause a 'split'. It would still have a pretty big majority on one side.
the orphan consensus.. vs just rejecting blocks due to who made it. leaves segwit only seeing one chain of blocks and making their own blockheight. where other nodes make another chain of blocks without bias and ultimately having a higher blockheight. because they are not throwing blocks aside
consensus is where the network as a whole end up with just one chain of blocks of the same height
blocks should only be rejected if they have bad data. not because of 'brand bias'.
try running a scenario where gmaxwell mentions purposefully orphaning off opposing blocks..
and see what happens when you start banning certain pools as if they dont exist and then compare the resulting chains segwit see's to the chain the rest of the network see's. it will surprise you.
simply put: if there were this chain of blocks,
ADEBFADB
ECADEBFADBE
Cimagining
C is the opposer
legacy sees: ADEBFADB
ECADEBFADBE
Csegwit sees: ADEBFADB
E [halt, unsync from network]
segwit stalls. because the
A has a 'previous hash' of
C which segwit refuses to recognise. so segwit cant accept A.. or the following blocks after that..
so now segwit pools need to make a block thats has a previous hash of
Eand now the chains diverge..
