carlton wants it to be an altcoin. simply so that blockstream have 100% control of their 30% altcoin which will simply become known as clams2.0
its only blockstream that want to split anything not blockstream..
other implementations want to keep the network together and use real consensus and all work on the same playing field.
no matter how much blockstreamers want to call anything not blockstream accepted as an altcoin. the only way it becomes an altcoin is if blockstream themselves do the splitting off..
which is becoming more and more apparent as to what blockstream is looking to do with
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--
UASF (reality its a hard bilateral fork)
I still don't understand UASF, since the node count can be easily gamed. What else can be done?
Run a custom Bitcoin client that refuses to relay blocks that don't support Segwit.
Not playing with these people, I would be perfectly happy to kill Antminer, Antpool and any others who want to treat the activation mechanism as a political tool.
I suggest we do it, Jihan Who can go into the paperweight business instead