UASF is a hard BILATERAL SPLIT
there is no real thing of "user activated soft fork", thats just buzzwording games
in short
soft=pools only
hard= NODES then pools
save repeating myself:
below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains
hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains
yep even in a pool only vote, bilateral splits can happen.
do not take one "teams" fake rhetoric of softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario.. as thats just the 'brush it under the carpet' gameplay
real funny thing is blockstream know Soft consensus failed them
but instead of doing the next best thing. a hard CONSENSUS.. they are wanting to jump straight to the thing they prtended going soft would avoid.. going for hard bilateral split.
shows how desperate they are..
just remember one thing. segwit RULES do not fix the network.
people can just avoid using segwit priv/pub keys and continue using native priv/pub keys and still do sigop quadratic spamming and malleation. even if segwit was activated as a soft consensus, soft bilateral, hard consensus hard bilateral.
in short segwit is an empty gesture that will never meet its promise.
the desperate moves by blockstream to go full 'wetard' and jump straight to hard bilateral rather then give in and do what the community want(hard consensus).
and the desperation of gmaxwell to beg the community to go bilateral.
What you are describing is what
I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset).
Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
along with his sheep script readers desparately trying to make it sound like its not blockstream that want bilateral splits... reveals that blockstream want be be centralist controllers rathr then going hard consensus and just being on the same playing field as non blockstream implementations