On 04/15/2017 03:04 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Considering that you did not spare a single word about the specific
> property that I am concerned about-- that the proposal will reject
> the blocks of passive participants, due to avoidable design
> limitations-- I can't help but
Speaking as one of the BIP148 agitators:
> There have been some other UASF proposals that avoid the forced
> disruption-- by just defining a new witness bit and allowing
> non-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded, I
> think they are vastly superior. They would be slower
