Hmm.. This does seem like a 'Kamikazee-Do-or-Die' move by the Users.. but if you're as tired of the bullshit as everyone else.. I say go for it. (We've lost market dominance over this issue, and the 'Bin' is just around the corner..)
The funny thing with this "plan" is that by the time the users have something to say (that is, can vote with their money), the miners will already have decided to split, and the exchanges will already have decided to list two bitcoin flavours. So I don't know why this is called a USER activated soft fork. It is a kind of chicken game, that hopes to somehow scare the majority of miners (2/3 are not even signalling NON-contentious segwit) and that hopes that the 1/3 of the miners that are in favour of a NON-contentious segwit, into adopting a contentious MINER decided soft fork with majority hash rate, because "if ever they don't, but some do, bitcoin is broken in two pieces and the users might have their say".
Note, again, that in this business, "full nodes" have nothing to do. The *miners* split, the *exchanges* list two coins, and the *users* dump one coin (on the exchanges) and buy the other coin. With 10 full nodes or with 10 000 full nodes: both chains will need to get listed on exchanges before users can do something.
So the two arguments put forward to absolutely want a SOFT fork with a SMALL block size, to:
- soft fork because a hard fork could lead to a contentious splitting of the chain
- we need many full nodes with small hard disks to keep bitcoin "secure" and "decentralized"
are entirely baffled by this "UASF", demonstrating, if successful, the falsehood of the exact arguments why one needed it !
What I don't understand is what happens to Silbert's plan..
If UASF works, can Silbert's work (I think they use different chains.. but it is getting awfully complicated..) ?
I think it was not a bad proposition. Finally we get a hard fork, so the fear of hardforking is gone then, we get larger blocks (although modestly larger ones, but at least, once you do it once, you can do it again), segwit can be done in a cleaner (HF) way because it contains good stuff and the spectrum of forcing everyone onto segwit transactions, and later onto the LN by lack of block chain room to save Joe's node in his basement who cannot afford a 1 TB disk per year, is gone.
But it is most probably going to fail for game-theoretical reasons.
