Do you not think segwit could be a better implementation as a hard fork? Perhaps it could even learn some lessons from classic's flextrans features. And BU's implementation of EC could be considered over complicated, and a better KISS solution could be used.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864477.msg18541674#msg18541674
A HF doesn't make Segwit more than trivially simpler than it already is. EC is actually the bigger problem when it comes to KISS. Flextrans is garbage FYI, just an attempted copycat of Segwit which was riddled with tons of bugs.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864477.msg18541674#msg18541674
UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.
Wrong. You don't even understand it, yet you are attempting to spread "knowledge" to others. 
where as using the implementations that have dynamics actually start allowing blocks over1mb to be built without needing to be spoonfed yet another release download.
where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network
Stop subversively promoting BU. If you care about decentralization, you'd be running away from BU not towards it.where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network
I'm much more interested about tier network implications for the LN and how we can
create decentralized routing.
Relevance to Segwit? None. Relevance to UASF? None. #Tactics.create decentralized routing.