On Monday 10 July 2017 11:50:33 AM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF > BIP 148 ultimatum.
BIP148 began with 8 months lead time, reduced to 5 months from popular request and technical considerations. There is nothing about BIP148 that compels an attempted hardfork 90 days later - that could just as well have been 18 months. > More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the > Segwit2x direction. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core > developers, Segwit2x activation will not cause any major disruptions. That's not true at all. Based on my observations, only approximately 20% of the community follow Core's technical lead without significant consideration of their own - and who knows if that would change if Core were to suggest clearly-unsafe block size increases, or attempted to force a hardfork against consensus. Even with Core's support, many people would oppose the hardfork attempt, and it would fail. > Without Core, there will be a temporary split. Both sides will have to > hard-fork. Segwit2x's hardfork does not compel the remaining Bitcoin users to also hardfork. > I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its > own vision, is not so bad. I concur, but I disagree your approach has any possibility of a united Bitcoin. The only way to get that today, would be to do Segwit+Drivechain, not Segwit+Hardfork. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
