@Dusk
i went to check exactly what the aegis upgrade touched, since march 3rd gets cited as a major milestone but different sources describe it differently — one says mandatory for all node operators, another calls it a testnet-only prep step. turns out both are just incomplete versions of the same thing, and honestly i almost stopped at "one of these is just wrong" before digging into dusk's actual github repo. their rusk release notes list separate aegis activation block heights for mainnet and testnet, 3,590,904 and 2,773,727, confirming it hit both networks, just not at the same block number.
so there wasn't actually a scope conflict, there was a coverage gap — nobody covering it in the press wrote it up as "mainnet and testnet, here are both activation heights," they each picked one network and called it the whole story.
it's a pretty normal way to roll out a hard fork, stagger testnet slightly differently from mainnet, that part isn't unusual or concerning on its own. i just think it's worth noticing how a genuinely simple two-network rollout got flattened into two competing, incomplete narratives once it passed through secondary coverage.
does anyone know if the two activation heights lined up in wall-clock time, or did testnet actually activate before mainnet? 🧐
#dusk $DUSK
i went to check exactly what the aegis upgrade touched, since march 3rd gets cited as a major milestone but different sources describe it differently — one says mandatory for all node operators, another calls it a testnet-only prep step. turns out both are just incomplete versions of the same thing, and honestly i almost stopped at "one of these is just wrong" before digging into dusk's actual github repo. their rusk release notes list separate aegis activation block heights for mainnet and testnet, 3,590,904 and 2,773,727, confirming it hit both networks, just not at the same block number.
so there wasn't actually a scope conflict, there was a coverage gap — nobody covering it in the press wrote it up as "mainnet and testnet, here are both activation heights," they each picked one network and called it the whole story.
it's a pretty normal way to roll out a hard fork, stagger testnet slightly differently from mainnet, that part isn't unusual or concerning on its own. i just think it's worth noticing how a genuinely simple two-network rollout got flattened into two competing, incomplete narratives once it passed through secondary coverage.
does anyone know if the two activation heights lined up in wall-clock time, or did testnet actually activate before mainnet? 🧐
#dusk $DUSK
