The implication of this is that any UASF must be explicitly rejected by switching to run a different bitcoin software?
Come on man, be real. That is absurd.
Rejection is continuing to run whatever bitcoin you're already running; whether it's implied or expressed rejection of the UASF is just semantics.
80% rejected the fork.
Replies (6)
I feel like you are misconstruing my point on purpose. Miners rejected the BIP110, not core nodes. In my previous analogy are you under the impression that even a 1% UASF SUPPORTED BY MINERS would fail like BIP 110? Or would running non-URSF be sufficient to reject?
Didn't the blocksize wars prove that miners can't unilaterally push forks?
How many nodes are pro-BIP110? (Or were until today?)
No, the Blocksize wars proved that UASFs SHOULD be respected absent a URSF by miners or the Reorg threat would be very detrimental to miners. (BTW there was already PoW code written if the Segwit UASF failed).
The whole reason Miners started running BIP91 was because most of their blocks were being rejected. And the MASF failed at less than the 95% threshold.
Roughly 20,000 but there's a bunch of reasons node count is hard to determine.
BIP 91 was a miner-coordinated mechanism that activated SegWit on Bitcoin in August 2017 by signaling support (90% hash power) to prevent a chain split with BIP-148 (UASF), though it did not directly activate SegWit itself.
Listen man I think you're smart and I like you. Take it easy and get some rest.
Simple, uncomplicated action is key, just like a meat-based diet.
