Quote from: stdset on March 30, 2017, 02:27:33 PM

Quote from: achow101 on March 30, 2017, 01:14:27 AM

BIP 148 (aka UASF) is not accepted by pretty much all developers. It has not been accepted by Core nor is it likely to be accepted and implemented by Core. As of now, the segwit implementation in Core is as is specified in the segwit BIPs, which do not include BIP 148.

I'm waiting for an implementation. Once we have a reviewed and tested implementation, I will upgrade my node to activate UASF at whatever date has most support from the community. Miners had a lot of time to upgrade. Alts are advancing. I'd prefer to activate UASF sooner rather than later.

As will I.

The developers arguing against it are contemptible. It's supposed to be a readiness formality, not a vote. If you think that the disruption will be too much for your delicate little nerves to handle, you clearly don't understand the political significance of Bitcoin to begin with. We're being forced into taking drastic steps by the miners, and now "Core" wants to stonewall too?

I'd like to know exactly which Core contributors are taking this non-productive, obstructive stance, those that lack courage are not suited for this type of project. The users would certainly have sufficient fortitude to back this move, they're interested in the growing success of the project not to mention their own success.

achow101, which Core developers lack the fortitude to support the users making their own decision on activating Segwit, BIP148 or otherwise?