Since I'm still awaiting a reply to the previous point, I'll move on to the next one.
And again, if BIP148 has no traction it will die and nothing will happen. JarzikCoin will permanently create a situation where we have 2 goddamned bitcoins.
Horseshit. Complete and utter. If SegWit2x has no traction it will die and nothing will happen.
Your issue is that SegWit2x
does appear to have traction.
ANY proposal involving a fork that has enough support behind it can result in a permanent split. Any proposal that doesn't have sufficient support can die off quietly and unnoticed. The two are
equally capable of creating a permanent split assuming there's traction behind them (although there's also a question of timing in this instance, where if SegWit2x activates in time, BIP148 becomes irrelevant). Your post appears to indicate that because you don't think enough people give a shit about the proposal you care about, you can somehow pretend it isn't just as capable of creating a split. That could either be a double standard and downright hypocrisy on your part, or possibly further proof that you simply haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about.
On such evidence of either questionable character or a general lack of understanding, back to the original point:
All updates have been deployed through UASF. Satoshi used UASF in the past. This is not the thing.
While many softforks have certainly taken place,
none of them have met the criteria laid out in
shaolinfry's proposal (linked so you can read it "from the horse's mouth" as to how it differs to a conventional softfork). I mean, you do actually know how this thing you've been campaigning for actually works, right? I'm genuinely starting to wonder now. You did post in that thread, so I'm assuming you read and understood it, so I don't see how you think that such an event has ever occurred before (although, as Iranus points out, you didn't really read or understand
this thread particularly well before blurting out your views, so maybe that's a factor).
Name
one previous "user activated" softfork that went ahead without a majority of mining support under the assumption that miners would at some juncture later later follow the non-mining nodes based on economic activity even if they didn't agree in principle. One.
I'm not holding my breath, because I'm pretty sure the answer will involve an admission that your words were the result of ignorance at best or an outright lie at the worst, but I'd still like a response to this question. Name one.
