That’s a good point, but does that mean that most/the majority of the community during 2017, that included users, exchanges, merchants, within the Bitcoin network were against Segwit? Or there was a chance they didn’t support it? I believe not.
I believe a lot of the bitcoin ecosystem did not initially support SegWit. I think it is difficult to argue otherwise. Over time, arguments were made in favor of SegWit, including the various failures of alternate scaling implementations, and the signaling of various futures markets.
In other words, over time, minds were changed after additional data was understood. This is exactly how bitcoin should be improved. A BIP can be proposed that has initial opposition, and those in favor of the BIP should make a compelling argument as to why others should support the BIP.
That’s what I said.
The UASF was starting to pick up, with some developers, and exchanges beginning to support it, that’s why the miners only started to agree with the update. Without UASF, they would have continued to hold the network hostage.
But you replied that it was only speculation,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140134.msg56707724#msg56707724The UASF, and its other forms in the future will never be something “bad”, in fact, I believe it’s required to counter-balance governance issues.
USAF is a strong-arm tactic, it is coercion. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the proponents of SegWit 'selling' the benefits of SegWit to bitcoin's various stakeholders using persuasion.