As I've said multiple times before, no it is not remotely clear based on existing support. Everyone is reading too much reddit which is making things look simple through feedback loops of people convincing each other without looking at the big picture. Don't believe the "it doesn't matter how little support it has, it can't fail by design" bullshit. Sure a forked chain with no one supporting it that can't ever reconnect with the existing chain can't ever be killed off with UASF, but then it can also simply remain as a zombie chain forever with <1% hashrate. If it got support of say 25% of the hashrate it would be a far more meaningful alternative. If you think that changing PoW as a way of increasing its relevance is the solution, then I think you need to seriously take a long hard think about how we got to where we are in terms of current bitcoin acceptance, value, perceived stability and future prospects. If you're willing to sacrifice all that on some overarching principle, then you should also accept that bitcoin's relevance as by far the most relevant cryptocurrency will never again be achieved.　Following Luke-jr standing alone of all people would be madness...

Not sure why you bring that up, core's position is segwit first before anything and everything else; I don't see why you expect them to offer anything else, it shouldn't even be a discussion point by now (at least not on this thread.)

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...?

Which is Hash rate (7d)   247G

So yeah only slushpool like I said.

Right, and given it's almost 100% slush at the moment, he would see the chain as being a dead end and see it as lost business and abandon it immediately, leaving the fork without any hashrate whatsoever (except that bogus uasfpool.com which has only 500GH and isn't even configured to support segwit properly and is actually likely a scam).

BIP148 advocates are fooled by slush's move. Slush is a businessman first and foremost. He'll advertise any old fucking crap option so long as it brings miners to his pool. That doesn't remotely mean he supports it himself. The default pool choice when left up to the pool to choose is currently advertising... nothing; not segwit, not BU, not BIP148, nothing. I guess it gives miners somewhere to mine if they support one of the options. I can't run a pool like that myself.

Not false. I said decent sized. Slush pool is big, but the amount of hash directed to his BIP148 option is not enough to sustain the entire network. Blocks would be days apart at the current rate.

Nonsense. After another non-segwit block is built on any BIP141 blocks, the segwit pools will still mine on top of those and even when they find new segwit blocks, they'll be built on top of non-segwit blocks so only the very first short chain of segwit blocks will be considered by BIP148 and then it will be left in the cold while any remaining BIP148 pools try to build on those first blocks. BIP148 doesn't need a miner majority to build a chain, but it needs a decent sized miner minority which it still doesn't have.

I think he means ethos the operating system which is this http://ethosdistro.com/
Either way that only mines altcoins anyway so he's still in the wrong place.

Love them, but they're tiny. I have a few Canaan contacts and I asked them for an official position too and they seem to have decided to not have a position at all...

You're describing the current state paying no deference to intent. BU has not been "gaining power" for months - the hashrate has remained the same based on pool support all that time and variance is the only reason % changes. It's been dead in the water since this "miner agreement"; the pools just haven't changed from what they're currently signalling since they have nothing new to signal yet and every time they change their mind and signal something else they're effectively going back on their previous allegiance.  PoW is here to stay, yes bitmain makes all the hardware but changing PoW would actually be the death knell for bitcoin. Bitmain doesn't have as much power as they think they have - the response to Jihan's call to arms was proof of this, even if they make all the hardware. Except for Roger Ver, whose motives might be related to raising the value of altcoins in preference to bitcoin, the miners aren't willing to destroy their own industry just to spite the users. That they came to an agreement of segwit+2MB is evidence of that fact already. Core is basically working on giving them what they want now which also suits users, core, exchanges and businesses so what disaster do you actually perceive here should PoW remain and bitmain continue making most of the hardware and we don't get a user forced minority MASF (which is what BIP148 is doing)?

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.

Post this on the antpool thread please. That cunt with his fucking rip off piece of shit pool doesn't deserve any more publicity. It's their fault for holding back change that the fees are so high that we need such a service in the first place.

/locked

I think this thread has run its course so I'm locking it.

You don't have an active worker. My guess is you downloaded mining software and started it without realising it doesn't do anything without dedicated mining hardware attached - no, your PC does NOT mine anything when it comes to bitcoin.

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.

My thoughts specifically on what I think is going to happen or what I think of UASF?

I can't really tell if you realised that was just a pun based on your handle or not...

Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain