But the split wouldn't have been caused by BIP148.
-
-
Also, of the users polled, not only did a majority support BIP148, but those who did not also either opposed Segwit in general, or said they would support BIP148 if Core released it in an official release. So BIP148 effectively had almost same community support as Segwit itself.
-
Now I'm not going to say there weren't exceptions to this, but those who supported Segwit, and opposed BIP148 of their own decision-making (ie, not simply deferring to "whatever Core does") were a very small group.
-
1/ Again, there are so many problems with the so called “user polls”. For examples:
-
2/ Confirmation bias: those who follow you tend to agree with you - note that even if an independent party started the poll it can quickly turn biased as soon as one influencer with large following retweets.
-
3/ Sampling bias: does r/Bitcoin and Twitter crypto truly represent the collective will of all Bitcoin users? Chances are the answer is no.
-
4/ Even if there is a way to ask every Bitcoin user, would that necessarily produce a good poll? the truth is that most users are not qualified to make technical judgements. Do we poll users on how to build bridges / nuclear generators?
-
5/ Many were just frustrated / impatient with the stalemate and willing to go with the 1st solution you give them, whatever that might be. Otoh, a number of Core Devs- who actually understood the full implications of BIP148- were on the fence about BIP148.https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/ …
-
6/ The author of BIP148 himself, ShaolinFry, had second thoughts about BIP148. It was exactly what prompted him to create BIP149- a safer alternative.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
In what way whatsoever is it coercive to demand to be able to use an opt in feature that is opt in for everyone to validate(meaning no default imposed node costs) and even opt in for miners to mine?
-
quoting Luke-jr's directly "a split would have pushed the supporters who didn't enforce to begin doing so"- That's coercive. Whoever dare staying on the legacy chain would face wipeout risk. THAT's coercive.
-
Pushed them to do something directly themselves that they already supported? Coercive?

-
Yes. You can have the same goals (Segwit activation) and at the same time disagree about how to get there. Nothing strange about that.
-
Analogy: parents and child both want child to succeed. Parents want child to do things their way. Noble goal? Sure. Coercive? Yes.
-
You are already not representing reality by pretending there were not people who supported BIP148 but didn't run a node. I know plenty personally. You then further deviate from reality by pretending I don't have a right to run whatever node software I want.
-
when did I claim that? "I know" is anecdotal. What's "plenty"? "plenty" out of what? No one stops you from running a BIP148 node, but claiming BIP148 was safe / not reckless is ridiculous.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Every single measurable metric showed majority support for BIP148. Even if you want to claim that's imperfect, it's still the best we have, and there is no reason to assume it was wrong.
-
Could you clarify what exactly is the method of consensus for Bitcoin atm? I've boiled it down to: 1. Full node Operators 2. Miners 3. Dev's 4. People who own and use Bitcoin. 2&3 are easy enough to track 1 and 4 not so much.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
