# Default signet reorg history — was the fork at height 287766 (depth 19) deliberate?

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/default-signet-reorg-history-was-the-fork-at-height-287766-depth-19-deliberate/2591>\
**Category:** Implementation\
**Tags:** signet\
**Created:** [June 5, 2026, 11:46am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/default-signet-reorg-history-was-the-fork-at-height-287766-depth-19-deliberate/2591 "2026-06-05T11:46:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pramodkandel](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/pramodkandel/32/2109_2.png) [@pramodkandel](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/pramodkandel)\
**Post date:** [June 5, 2026, 2:27pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/default-signet-reorg-history-was-the-fork-at-height-287766-depth-19-deliberate/2591/3 "2026-06-05T14:27:28Z")

</div>

Thank you! That clears things up : ) It’s reassuring to know it was not a designed deep reorg.

On that point – at least for our use case, it’d be great to keep reorgs from getting too deep. Signet’s appeal for us is that it mimics mainnet – predictable blocks and mainnet-like forks are basically why we picked it over Testnet4 – so occasional shallow reorgs are fine, but deep ones on the default net would defeat the point for us.

We may want to test deep-reorg handling, but we’d rather opt into it rather than have the shared default surprise us.

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/default-signet-reorg-history-was-the-fork-at-height-287766-depth-19-deliberate/2591)._