Just because you decide to follow an invalid chain doesn't make it any less invalid. It's no different than if you decided to run 2X.
-
-
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.
-
and how is that "not representing reality" exactly? did I claim that there was zero support for BIP148? I'm merely pointing out that there were other voices out there besides the BIP148 group.
-
You are literally not even reading what I'm typing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The split (caused by malicious miners), not BIP148, would have pushed them to enforce. The same is true even without any softfork.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
