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?
-
-
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.
-
7/ Speaking of which, the fact that there were multiple Core Devs against merging BIP148 to Core was clear evidence that your statement “support for BIP148 == support for Segwit” is not true. Unless you are saying Core Devs are not part of the “community.”
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.
