<p>In block <a href="https://blockstream.info/block/000000000000000000009bad313710a4675333de721a56e76ad0bfc240dfc595" rel="nofollow noreferrer">681543</a> Slush Pool had mined the proper taproot signalling (bit 2 in block version) block but the version wasn't the default 0x20000004 with a version base 0x20000000 but 0x3fff0004. Does it make any difference? Why would they use a different version base (0x3fff0000) just for this block?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T12:26:59.683Z
I think this may be a duplicate of one of these two: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/96397/5406, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/105694/5406
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T14:41:48.460Z
Thanks, the ASIC boost may be the proper answer :)
Tony Sanak
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T16:14:57.287Z
If one of them answers your question, you can close it yourself as a duplicate by flagging
Murch
<mining-pools><taproot><activation-mechanism>
Taproot block version
Tony Sanak
# Taproot block version

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-02)

In block [681543](https://blockstream.info/block/000000000000000000009bad313710a4675333de721a56e76ad0bfc240dfc595) Slush Pool had mined the proper taproot signalling (bit 2 in block version) block but the version wasn't the default 0x20000004 with a version base 0x20000000 but 0x3fff0004. Does it make any difference? Why would they use a different version base (0x3fff0000) just for this block?

**Tags:** mining-pools, taproot, activation-mechanism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think this may be a duplicate of one of these two: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/96397/5406, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/105694/5406  
> **username_0**: Thanks, the ASIC boost may be the proper answer :)  
> **username_1**: If one of them answers your question, you can close it yourself as a duplicate by flagging  

---

## 0 answers

