No issue with this proposal in theory this is now a battle Between 148 and 149 ignores Silbert but it is annoying due to how signalling has not reached consensus a forced fork date on both versions is a trap.
Once we hit this current period where escalating fees impact the overall user experience and by extension bitcoin services the countdown started between the sides towards a solution that will not make all users happy but will extend the clock.
One side will side with the Asset Class definition for Bitcoin and limiting the size of Bitcoin the pure 1MB faction, the other will grow and adjust the blockchain size over time in order to provide payment services through Bitcoin and that debate will continue.
This proposal is one of two acting as a temporary halting point so that the end users are unaffected and the services that process user transactions while client side users are untouched for the most part but will be forced to run new nodes.
Segwit or not the main issue is the need for more space on the blocks until we build a better solution to compensate miners after block subsidizes decrease with this they will have till 2020 to look at the issue in depth, for now 2MB will do the trick for the expand faction without wiping out miner fees significantly and get us there, only this route leads to a fork.
(We can call this period the excess profit period where on top of block rewards high txt fees exist and with 300,000 Transactions in the mempool that is not going to change for a while yet and is the opportunity of a lifetime if we do fork all new chains will retain the Bitcoins owned today.)
Forcing users to accept the 2MB size limitations and install a new Bitcoin client is not as good as a USAF since some users will not recognize the new chain and need to install new clients hence 2 Bitcoin chains, and it means there may be a 3.0 looming from this 2.0 Hard Fork unless its coded to be able to dynamically adjust the max size to demand not even mentioning other issues if the code has a bug.
In reality we may see this implementation succeed though due to the collective hash of the mining pools, but I am concerned of a Segwit version that is not coded and not run without testnet scrypt first.
Interesting times in Bitcoin the worst case we get 3 to 4 Bitcoins and press the Nuclear fragmentation option the Poker hands are revealed how will this play out, unfortunately it may be a self fulfilling prophecy if the question is who will pull the trigger and start the true mad descent which is currently programmed to be before the end of midnight November 15th 2017. OR this version that jumps ahead and is forked on September 21, 2017. But not before August 1 when the BIP 148 nodes reject any Bitcoin blocks that do not signal support for Segregated Witness via BIP 9.
Original, USAF, Silbert, Silbert 2.0
Gah this is going to be a pita.
At the minimum we will have a Segwit Chain and a Non-Segwit chain as a possible outcome to simplify it if this splits the consensus.
In my opinion USAF had the time and testing to prove itself we don't need to flip Segwit twice ... but props to Shaolinfury for a dual proposal.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bip-148-and-bip-149-two-uasfs-activate-segwit/https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki
LOL I feel like just stopping reading news for a a few weeks and just come back when they've all made up their freaking minds.
-ck knows where it's at see you at the drama pageant, all we need is Bruno in a tutu to get consensus on something
