That's "blockchain governance" for you. Miners wanted something, the community/economic majority wanted something else. I believe it would always follow the path of the community/economic majority. It's the community that creates the demand for blocks.
great, we've already established that.
if the "community" tries to UASF on a recklessly hasty timeline like BIP148, i certainly won't support it. next time someone tries to UASF on a 2-month timeline, i say fork them off. people who prefer to risk a network split because they can't wait some additional months for safe implementation are like impatient children. we shouldn't be caving to their demands.
I believe we should consider what the situation was. Segwit would not have activated if the risk of the UASF wasn't taken. Segwit was running out of time.
BUT, I'm not saying you're wrong.
