I thought I was the only one who understood UASF as a dangerous precedent.

A real honest test would be implement it as a Hard Fork and let the economic majority, whom is claimed to be supporting this, truly decide which chain had value.

This way, it's just a clever way of gaming the system and add a little bit more incentive through the dangers of replay and reorg.

For those who claim they don't want to disrupt the system and thus apologize for soft forks, this one is candy...

This is coercion at its best, regardless of pretended chivalry of what is being fought for.

The fact is, Bitcoin's brand is valuable. Noone wants to risk forking off to a new coin. This is the only reason this is being done through a soft fork in my eyes.