There are 3 types of users: 1) users who actively supported BIP148 2) users who were aware but not supportive-including many pro-Segwit users. some prefered BIP149. 3) users who were completely unaware BIP148 were coercive & hurt groups 2 & 3. There's nothing "soft" about it.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
You keep saying "a majority of users supported BIP148", but the truth is that there was no reliable way to measure this, beyond the r/bitcoin tiny community and unreliable Twitter polls- which have biased samples given the inherent nature of Twitter.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
Pushed them to do something directly themselves that they already supported? Coercive?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr and
Yes. You can have the same goals (Segwit activation) and at the same time disagree about how to get there. Nothing strange about that.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @brian_trollz and
Analogy: parents and child both want child to succeed. Parents want child to do things their way. Noble goal? Sure. Coercive? Yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
You are literally not even reading what I'm typing.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.
