Quote from: mmortal03 on June 15, 2017, 08:42:53 PM

Quote from: The One on June 15, 2017, 12:53:27 PM

So it is ok if others start a fork using UASF or Core developers getting their way.

False equivalence.

Arguable. BIP141 is fine and perfectly legitimate if it activates as intended. 148, however, is an entirely different proposition and I'll throw in one of the OP's own quotes from much earlier in the scaling conflict to explain what I mean by that:

Quote from: theymos on August 10, 2015, 03:18:04 AM

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin ^(*). A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

^(*) bolded emphasis mine

BIP148 is far more likely to result in a forced and contentious split than 141 is, with all of the associated drawbacks listed above. The economy and miners have to be in agreement with 141. Whereas with 148, it's not a true consensus if you have to effectively disregard the users securing the chain by mining it. It might be called a soft fork, but it is almost guaranteed to result in a hardfork. So a comparison with Bitmain's proposed hardfork is apt in my personal view.

//EDIT:

Quote from: forevernoob on June 16, 2017, 12:56:08 PM

Care to explain what option you support then?

Perhaps it might be an idea to take the layout of the giant image and make a post or thread collating everyone's own preferences for each proposal.

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
DooMAD	Acceptable	No	Weak	Acceptable	Deficient	Prefer	No	Fuck No
next person	etc	etc	etc	etc	etc	etc	etc	no

//EDIT:

If anyone wants me to add them, see this new thread and please post in the specified format (preferably still in the code tags).