Hello  

Ive been reading the last pages of this thread, as im done with my coding im going to troll à bit   going to come back with cool stuff soon  

Already one thing that always disturb me is this view of marxism from usa who seem to be really aksew lol like equating marxism with state power whereas marxisme originally is all about no state, no banks, no class, and horizontal organisation, self détermination, believing in social progress through work and rationalism. Marxisme never say about all controling state.

When I see this kind of view on Marxisme it give me same feeling than seeing ignorant islamophobics equating Islam with daesh lol kinda same propaganda fabric made in usa I guess lol

The other thing is this concept of entropy and conflating rules of thermodynamics with social motion is a bit fallacious, the concept of entropy make sense in the context of designing system with a clear purpose and mesurable input/output against which you can measure the entropy being unpredicted fluctuation in the system performance, but the purpose of the human mind being unknown, this concept of entropy applied to social system is a bit moot.

Like comparing libértarian motion with entropy in a system is already considering human in the perspective that it has to fit into a pattern against which it's performance can be measured against an expectation. Like David hume and his case about what "ought to be" . But there is no definition of what human mind ought to be so this concept of entropy is kinda moot in this context.

Power is an illusion anyway lol

There is a good book also about free will from neurology perpective, it shows interesting insights about what people are after when they seek freedom, is it escaping responsability, denying conséquences of actions, unfortunately both socialism & religion become more thing to cling to in order to avoiding facing one own inability to reach it's needs, and one can never be really free from external influences throught matérialisme, it's why the stoïcs were right since the beginning about the only real way to get freedom: mental strength, ascétism, self discipline etc to be as free of possible of external influence and maximizing will power to realize moral actions.

This whole concept of political power, cultural influence and sorting people out based on their culture of origin is already from this same perpective of seing freedom as entropy. Aka thinking outside of the box is so inside of the box  

Politics has gripped Bitcoin and it’s about the only thing people have been wanting to talk about for the past few years. I’ve written before about how the Bitcoin ecosystem is like the three branches of government, with Developers being the legislative branch, Miners being the executive branch and Users being the judicial branch. I’ve also written before about how Bitcoin changes through consensus, and how consensus is not supposed to be easy.
In this article, I examine an alternative path to the current political stalemate and how that can help empower Developers, Miners and Users.

Current State of Miners
Among mining manufacturers, it’s pretty obvious that Bitmain is the biggest and most successful. They produce somewhere around 50–75% of the Bitcoin network hash power through their chips and other manufacturers have a tough time competing with them on price. Their first product, the S1, came out in 2014 when there were many more competitors (CoinTerra, KNC Miner and Spondoolies Tech to name a few). They distinguished themselves by having the product on-hand at various Bitcoin conferences and unlike many of their competitors, having great supply chain management helped them win fans around the world.

As Bitcoin experienced a 3-year bear market, many mining manufacturers simply went out of business as the economics turned from wildly profitable to barely survivable. It didn’t help that many had products that often had defects and delivery issues. Bitmain not only survived this time, but thrived, and managed to capture significant market share.

Whatever your opinion of the company may be, Bitmain is the most dominant Miner and they are the 800 lb gorilla in the mining space.

Current State of Developers
It’s well known that Satoshi Nakamoto made the first Bitcoin client and released it to the world in 2009. Many people have contributed to what’s called the “reference client” and Bitcoin Core, as it’s now called, has hundreds of developers that contribute to the open source repository.

What’s less known is that there have been many different attempts to create alternative Bitcoin clients. Obelisk, btcd, Toshi and bcoin are just some of the many attempts at creating new Bitcoin clients from scratch. Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin XT and the newest Segwit2x are some forks of Bitcoin Core. While each has had a varying degree of success, it appears most of the network continues to run Bitcoin Core. Most estimates are well over 90%.
Why is Bitcoin Core the most popular? There’s certainly history to consider. People managing money tend to be conservative and changing any part of the tool chain for managing money tends to be a dicey proposition as any errors may cause monetary loss. Further, Core has the largest developer community and the most rigorous development processes in place.

Whatever your opinion of Bitcoin Core may be, Bitcoin Core is the dominant client on the network and they are the 800 lb gorilla in the development space.

Balance of Power
While before 2014, the Miners and Developers generally got along, things started to change once the issue of scaling came up. We’ve gotten to the point where the scaling conflict is often seen as Bitmain vs Bitcoin Core (I’m sure neither are happy with that characterization). We have two dominant groups that have been in conflict.
Miners are frustrated because they’ve been asking for large blocks for years. From Bitmain’s perspective, none of the Developers seem even interested in any sort of hard fork. When they ask, the usual responses range from “follow the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process” (which inevitably gets voted down) to “fork off”.
Developers are frustrated because they’ve been asking for Segwit for years. From Bitcoin Core’s perspective, the Miners seem to be obstructing good technology for no good reason. When they ask for a reason, the usual responses range from “we want larger blocks” to “you’re carrying water for Blockstream”.

Consensus and Control
Generally, when there’s a conflict that’s not getting resolved, you have to go up a level of abstraction to figure out the problem. While scaling is the reason everyone claims for this conflict, the actual reason may lie higher up. And when you think about the actual consensus process that’s required to change Bitcoin, it’s clear that both sides want more control than they currently have.

And this makes sense. Both groups are interested in more say over the long haul as Bitcoin becomes more and more valuable. A small concession or precedent set now has consequences going forward. Bitcoin Core may be thinking a hard fork now would set a precedent for additional, possibly more dangerous, hard forks later. Bitmain may be thinking cooperation on a soft fork without getting some concession would set a precedent for being dominated and having requests ignored later.

Bitcoin Unlimited in this context can be seen as a way to get around the Developers by replacing them entirely. Similarly, BIP148 and other UASF proposals are a way to get around the Miners.
This has brought us to the current impasse. Both sides want control, but given that Bitcoin is a consensus-based system, there’s no way to give each side what it wants and keep Bitcoin on a single chain.
The way to solve this problem, then, is not by trying to solve the presenting technical issue, but by solving the deeper issue of control. The question isn’t so much “how can we scale bitcoin” but “how can we give each side more control?”

The Naive Solution
The most obvious way to give each side more control would be to split Bitcoin in two, or what I would call the Solomon Solution. We can hard fork Bitcoin and each side can do whatever it wants on their chain. One side would have to find new Miners (or even a new Proof-of-Work function) and the other side would have to find new Developers.

While this has some appeal, splitting Bitcoin in two has the potential to cause significant collateral damage. Indeed, most contentious forks have this as a possible endpoint as both sides have the ability to hard fork. Bitcoin may be the baby that dies if nobody agrees.

A More Thoughtful Solution
So far, we’ve only been talking about two of the three branches of the Bitcoin governance: Miners and Developers. When the two disagree, the ideal solution would be to have the Users adjudicate. Unfortunately, safe, liquid adjudication is only available after a hard fork when the price between the tokens can float.
But what if we can give both Miners and Developers control over separate, smaller domains? What if each could run separate chains and each could change and use them according to their needs and desires? Further, what if these separate chains were actually extensions of Bitcoin itself?

Wouldn’t Users naturally utilize the one that they preferred? Wouldn’t the best idea win instead of the best political player?

If this sounds familiar, it should. This is what the whole sidechains project is all about.
What are sidechains?

If you haven’t heard about sidechains, think of them as a separate blockchain where you can deposit and withdraw Bitcoins. That is, if you deposit 1 Bitcoin to the sidechain you add 1 Bitcoin to your balance on the sidechain and if you withdraw 1 Bitcoin from the sidechain, you subtract 1 Bitcoin from your balance on the sidechain.
The separate blockchain can have all sorts of new features and won’t actually affect Bitcoin. And this is the key. You can give control of one sidechain to the Miners and another to the Developers. In fact, you can add lots more sidechains for a variety of purposes to see how well they work. Users can vote with their feet by going to sidechains that they find most useful. Merchants, for example, may want to go to a sidechain that’s much quicker to confirm. Exchanges may want to go to a sidechain with more financial instruments available.
That sounds awesome! Why don’t we have it yet?

Good question. One sidechain implementation already works. The sidechain is called Liquid and has been developed by Blockstream. They utilize something called a federation, which is a fancy way of saying deposits to the sidechain are Bitcoins sent to multisig addresses.

The Liquid security model requires a bunch (11+) of known, trusted entities (like exchanges) and that’s still in the process of being set up. The good news with Liquid is that it requires no changes to Bitcoin in order to work. The bad news is that you have to trust that a majority of entities won’t steal from you.
The other sidechain implementation is something called Drivechains. The good news is that Drivechains don’t require (less) trusted entities and the code is almost done. The bad news is that Drivechains require a soft fork.
Wouldn’t this give everybody what they want?

It certainly seems so. Having the market decide instead of committees seems like a much more scalable solution (pun intended). And indeed Paul Sztorc has proposed Drivechains as an alternative to Segwit or 2MB blocks. Segwit can easily be deployed on one sidechain and larger blocks in another sidechain.
It’s not all good news, however. There’s the obvious fact that BIP148 and BUIP0055 are scheduled for August 1 and October 18 respectively. Both are potentially contentious forks and may very well cause some serious disruption.
Liquid requires finding enough trusted entities in enough jurisdictions. Many Users don’t like having to trust other entities so this may be a non-starter.

Drivechains requires a soft fork where Miners validate new rules. Further, there are some technical issues that may need to be addressed as well as code that needs extensive review and testing before a soft fork can happen. Developers and Miners would ultimately have to agree to pursue this path.
Conclusion

The benefits of a sidechain solution are pretty clear. Developers and Miners are empowered since they can try out new, riskier features on sidechains and don’t have to get anyone’s approval for doing so. Each can control their own sidechain without disrupting any other part of Bitcoin. Users are empowered since they can have a choice of features without having to leave Bitcoin.

The downsides of a sidechain solution are a bit murkier and require a more thorough examination of the incentives to really evaluate properly.

As Bitcoin enters its fourth year of scaling conflict, creative solutions like Drivechains and Liquid deserve more rigorous consideration. There very well may be technical or trust issues that are insurmountable but it’s vital that as a community, we leave no stone unturned.

We are currently embroiled in a bitter political war. This is because we’re essentially stuck in a zero-sum game of consensus building. Innovation is a better way to resolve conflict than politics. Politics is messy, divisive and harmful. Innovation is clean, unifying and constructive. If an innovative path can be found, we owe it to ourselves as a community to find it.

would seem to belie either a willful ignorance or maliciousness.

damn hypocrit

False personal attacks based on no evidence should be deleted.

That is a valid stance and I agree that Segwit2x is not perfect. I see it more as one of the few possibilities we have to unlock the current stalemate without a chain split. And perhaps, in 6 months some of these "good features", in theory, could be integrated in the hard fork.

Statements from Core don't mean anything. This you should know by now.

This is simply untrue, and in fact the published capacity increases plan message directly contradicts you.
...
Your remark is doubly off the mark, to the point of a bit of offense,  because segwit _IS_ "on chain" scaling.    (It is both an increase of the chains scalablity and of its capacity.)--  doubly so because the same people have been doing all this work to keep up with load since _2011_ and have been responsible for 100+ times increases in scalablity from the original software.

Then you make a self moderated thread?

So you've probably heard by now that the large pools have been meeting in secret to discuss a way forward for the bitcoin protocol that would both activate segwit and a future 2MB hard fork. It appears the closed doors meetings did indeed come to an agreement, but not quite what has been assumed by the community.

This is allegedly the draft agreement:
https://pastebin.com/VuCYteJh

Copied below:

In short, what this actually means is a large proportion of the big mining pools have agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own to further their desires. They plan to do a hard fork within 4 months6 months(updated) that both activates segwit and creates a base block size increase of 2MB concurrently. In addition, they are NOT going to be using the existing segwit bits, signalling instead their own bit to activate segwit which is incompatible with the segwit activation from core. They are also planning activation at >80% hashrate.

In essence this means the pools are creating a fork of the current bitcoin code which is planned to be incompatible with any current version should their hard fork go ahead. Which means that every single current code node user, be they core, BU, classic, XT, whatever, is currently going to be on an incompatible fork of bitcoin after their planned deployment in SeptemberDecember. So they are asking the entire community to ignore all existing bitcoin implementations and adopt their software node implementation before that time, or risk being on a very hashrate poor fork, even though there is no published code to support this SeptemberDecember fork yet.

This isn't remotely what many of us were expecting when we heard the pools were agreeing to implement segwit provided a hard fork was also available. In retrospect it makes sense given their aggressive stance in the past, but basically this is without doubt the most aggressive stance yet by the mining consortium. It's even more amazing given bitcoin.com allegedly signed the agreement - BU's reference pool implementation owned by Roger Ver. I wonder if all the groups that allegedly signed the agreement are even aware of what it is they're agreeing to? Bitfury for example are in there, who have been vocal proponents of segwit to date.

This will no doubt make the community even more aggressive in response with its BIP148 stance. I don't like BIP148, but I like this even less.

I'd like to believe this draft agreement was heavily revised and is basically wrong, but at this stage this is all we have to go off.

Demonization of Core-devs happened first. Cool down man, #UASF is just the reaction.

No...



How we get here was itself problematic. How can a group of miners use a patented software on their hardware in an open source project while the other miners cannot?

Isn't this unfair to the other miners?

And now I have to retract my comments about the segwit2x COOP options being proposed as not being rejected. Many of the core developers are starting to weigh in on the debate with a formal opinion on it and so far no one has agreed to it:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Comments like this explain why they're not agreeing to it:
https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/873482749755088896
"Specifically, I believe the project got hijacked in a bait-and-switch."

Which means we do not have a consensus of any kind on any solution on the table yet that has both core and minerJihan support.

I don't think BIP148 will get any meaningful support in time for Aug1 so I'm guessing they're still hoping miners will buckle before November for the original segwit activation...?

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

Chemistry rose from the teaching of alchemists ..NO NO NO    Put leaves in water and boil Chemistry ..

Error is self-correcting IF we stick by it honestly, and follow it through to conclusion.

Being wrong is not a spiritual disaster - it is dishonesty which is the disaster: it is living by expedient lies which leads to Hell. Because expedient lies prevent us from recognising error.

This created world has ultimate coherence, since it is the product of one God. Therefore, all error will reveal itself in incoherence.

(Of course, coherence is Not the same as logic; since logic, like mathematics - or which it may be the parent - is a partial model of reality; and logical coherence therefore leaves out most of reality.) 

Some people with a reputation for blunt honesty are nothing of the sort! - they  wriggle and writhe in the face of the conclusions of their assumptions.

A couple of decades ago I used to admire and defend Richard Dawkins - mainly because I considered he was unsually honest; because he was clear and blunt in expression and unafraid of contradicting people to their faces. But I gradually realised that, on the contrary, he was evasive and expedient in his reasoning.

Dawkins is a good example of one who refused to follow his path of excess to the palace of wisdom; because he was not even aiming at wisdom; he refused to persist in his folly, hence he remained a fool rather than becoming wise.

Two examples. The book Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) was an exercise in distraction, a non sequitur in response to the century-plus of observations that If natural selection were indeed regarded the ultimate truth, Then art, poetry, morality, science (including natural selection) and much else are invalidated.

(This is a fact; because all our feelings, indeed all our knowledge is revealed by the assumption as merely the side effects of adaptations to enhance reproductive success. For example, if natural selection is primary; the theory of natural selection destroys its own validity; all scientific theories being merely side-effects of the process of enhancing differential reproductive fitness.)

Somewhat later (but a couple of years before I was a Christian) I met Dawkins at a dinner party, and asked him - as, I intended, a preliminary to a deeper discussion, why the USA was both by far the leading scientific nation in the world and also by far the most Christianly-religious of the developed nations?

Dawkins's reaction made clear that this paradox had not occurred to him - and he did not have an answer ready.

But instead of noting the apparent contradiction and exploring it as possible evidence of an error in his oft asserted assumption that Christianity was intrinsically and necessarily anti-scientific; Dawkins visibly shook-off the potential discussion with the irrelevant comment that it was not the most Christian people who were the actual scientists. Then having dismissed the matter, he turned and walked away to terminate the discussion - leaving me standing and more-or-less gaping! - which had not gone further than a few sentences. After just a few steps Dawkins looked as if he had already forgotten the whole thing.

Dawkins's folly is to believe that natural selection is the primary reality. I know exactly what this feels like, because I have believed this too. Indeed, I have believed this probably considerably more deeply and comprehensively than Dawkins (reaching its peak in the appendix to my 2003 book The Modernization Imperative).

But I persisted in my folly - and kept coming up against paradoxes and contradictions. My excessive devotion to this particular simplification therefore led me towards the palace of wisdom, because I was honest enough that I would not be satisfied with irrelevant pseudo explanations.

If I have any virtue in a higher than usual degree it probably is exactly this - that I persist in my folly, with honesty, until its falsehood becomes evident and unavoidable; and then I abandon it.

I have, indeed, adhered to most of the starkest follies of modernity over my life; and my life has therefore been a process of adopting then exploring folly before abandoning it. This continues - however, the follies are probably less 'excessive' these days; since after becoming a Christian I perceived the starkest insanities and evils of mainstream modern secularism.

But mainstream modern secularism is foolish in the extreme, and yet at the same time avoids learning from its folly; because it is dishonest.

Modern media/ bureacratic culture is systematically and pervasively dishonest - dishonest in public, dishonest in private, dishonest with itself. (This is sufficient evidence of its demonic origin, since such thoroughgoing and peristing dishonesty must be purposive; and only supernatural purpose could span generations.) No folly of modernity is too extreme to escape the correction of even common sense and direct experience (for example, the current official and coercively-imposed belief that being a man or woman is - in actual practice - a reversible state). 

This is why dishonesty dismays me far more than error. An honest fool will sooner or later become wise - indeed in essentials he already is wise, as such things are measured in mortal life.

By contrast; a dishonest man is a fool; no matter how great his knowledge, skill, status, wealth or power - and as such he is self-damned with a certainty that is as sure as his dishonest persists.

There is no cure for the dishonest soul.

Thats a very interesting article, but i have one problem with it, History states that Chemistry rose from the teaching of Alchemist and the article says that the Church burned the Alchemist, if so then dont you think that they hindered the advancement of Science.

The list of inventions created in the Middle Ages would exhaust the patience of an historian. I will mention only in passing a few off the top of my head: the stirrup, the spur, the horse collar, the horse shoe, the wheelbarrow, the chimney, the paper mill, windmills, escapement and clockworks, the pointed arch, the flying buttress, the jib sail, the stern-mounted rudder, the button, the steel crossbow, the quadrant, the almanac, the hour glass, the eyeglass, oil paintings, and most important of all, the university.

While all cultures, even the most primitive have learning, and all civilizations have scholars, only the Christians ever invented the university, an self governing institution solely devoted to the investigation of the trivium and quadrivium. It is not coincidence that to this day the terms used for logical syllogisms and logical fallacies are in Latin; it is no coincidence that the scientific names for everything from beasts to chemicals is in Latin, the language of science.

One of the astonishing things I discovered after my conversion, or at least, it was an astonishment to me, was that nearly everything I knew about history was false. When England and Germany broke away politically, religiously and culturally as much as they could from the rest of the European civilization, they did their level best to rewrite and reinterpret history into a revised form that denigrated all the accomplishments of the universal and ecumenical catholic Christian Church, and offer alternate explanations or alternate origins for her accomplishments.

Under this revised history, or, to be precise, mythology, the Roman Empire fell due to the invasion of virile outer barbarians racially distinct from the Imperial civilization, and everything from free elections to chivalry toward women sprang from the barbaric rather that civilized sources.

Moreover, according to this mythology, the Middle Ages were a time of magic, when men burned witches; whereas the previous Hellenic civilization was a time of enlightened investigation of the natural world, a time of logic and philosophy.

Allow me to quote from my fellow science fiction writer and good friend Mike Flynn:

The philosophers of the “Age of Reason” called the Middle Ages the “Age of Faith,” and claimed that because “God did it!” was the answer to everything, no one searched for natural laws. Some have since imagined a “war” between science and religion, and accused the medievals of suppressing science, forbidding medical autopsies, and burning scientists. Bad times for science and reason!

Or was it? In fact, the Middle Ages were steeped in reason, logic, and natural philosophy. These subjects comprised virtually the entire curriculum of the universities. The first medical autopsies were done in medieval Europe. And no medieval philosopher was ever prosecuted for a conclusion in natural philosophy. In his twelfth-century Dragmaticon, William of Conches wrote, “[They say] ‘We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.’ You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.” Not even the “Age of Reason” could have said it better.

Well, the most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails.

The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.

The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.

The people the Church persecuted were not scientists. She upheld and supported the sciences—it was not the secular power, after all, that funded and founded the universities, that was all done by the Church. The people the Church persecuted were astrologers and alchemists. By clearing the strangling underbrush of magic away, the Church is the only thing that permitted science to exist at all.

The Church crushed astrology to allow astronomy to flourish. The oldest astronomical observatory still in use anywhere in the world, significantly enough, is the Vatican observatory.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.

Allow me by way of introduction to quote again from the indispensable Mike Flynn

To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:

The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being,
This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard),
Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:

Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which:
Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.

The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

Well, I kinda agree with you here r0ach.
...

UASF is an interesting and very aggressive move towards forcing a split. I think the most pushed-for UASF in the form of BIP148 is far too aggressive too soon and is doomed. August 1 is very close and gives the compromisers very little time to formulate a meaningful and safe middle ground (read segwit + 2MB) to keep miners on board and avoid any splits. Should no compromise occur before that time, those signalling BIP148 will be left feeling very cold with almost no hashrate to support them, and a dead slow blockchain going nowhere. The proponents of BIP148 say there is nothing to lose and that those who are on the main chain will be the ones to lose when a reorganisation happens in the future and the uasf chain becomes the only active chain. I think this is fanciful given the absolutely minuscule miner support it currently has to create such a chain. The only realistic chance it has is if it is also coupled with the ridiculously destabilising move of changing proof of work since it will no longer need existing miner support. This of course then turns it into a hard fork as well...

What I think will happen is UASF will continue to be perceived as a threat that will make the existing players more likely to accept a compromise. The Silbert agreement was doomed from the start without any code or developers or core support but then again it was an overwhelming display of what the miners would agree to. UASF and specifically BIP148 has forced core developers to try and find that compromise point before any significant split could occur. In fact should this eventuate, and I believe it will, those who mine true UASF blocks from August1 before a compromise soft fork will be the only ones left on a dead end fork with a block chain that joins no one.

A large number of core developers are against BIP148 while most are for UASF in principle. UASF could in fact work without such an aggressive short time frame and core support but BIP148 is forcing the issue too soon with too little support.