Disagreed. The entire point of soft forks is to have a safe way to upgrade by being *backward compatible*. Backward compatibility implies inaction is a valid state. If you don’t care about backward compatibility, why bother with soft forks?
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 -
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.

