The majority of users were not enforcing bip148. Had some miners dare to defy bip148's proposal, there would have been 2 used chains. You can't dictate that I'm an "ex-full node" for not enforcing bip148 against my will.
-
-
Replying to @timoncc @hugohanoi and
That's where you're wrong. A majority of the users supported BIP148, and even if it turned out not all of them were enforcing, a split would have pushed the supporters who didn't enforce to begin doing so.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @LukeDashjr @timoncc and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 @timoncc and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LukeDashjr @hugohanoi and
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 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LukeDashjr @timoncc and
1/ Again, there are so many problems with the so called “user polls”. For examples:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
3/ Sampling bias: does r/Bitcoin and Twitter crypto truly represent the collective will of all Bitcoin users? Chances are the answer is no.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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/ …
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
6/ The author of BIP148 himself, ShaolinFry, had second thoughts about BIP148. It was exactly what prompted him to create BIP149- a safer alternative.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
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.”
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.
