this post feels like propoganda. prior bitcoin upgrades have gone much smoother and when they do go wrong the community banded together to spread the right information. albiet the userbase was likely a lot smaller back then.
If the soft fork goes through, the Chinese miners are going to attack the chain.
If the soft fork fails, Core developer Luke-Jr said they'd change the Proof of Work algorithm and possibly create an altcoin (or bitcoin if enough follow).
This is like a Russian Roullete situation. The gun's loaded, all signs point to neither side conceding. It's the cypherpunks vs the corporate miners (plus some former devs and very credible people).
No, Luke is saying that if chinese miners attack the chain and are successful, then the core chain will need to change PoW (otherwise with a minority of hash power it will take al long time for difficulty to adjust.)
There are three factions here-- Segwit2X and Core, who both want segwit, and Bitmain which does not want segwit and which has threatened a forcible hard fork into a bitcoin that has unlimited block size-- and they are even talking about doing an ICO and things like that:
The consensus is behind Segwit2X which IS a UASF. The original UASF proposal is BIP-148 and Segwit2X uses a different mechanism (BIP-9 and 91? I think) but those differences are implementation details that Bitcoin.org doesn't the a problem with.
The Segwit2X and Core factions agree on Segwit. Core doesn't like later doing a 2MB hard fork, but most of us think it's a reasonable compromise. There won't be a lot of complaining.
The real threat is Bitmain which wants to do its own hard fork, that will NOT be compatible with Segwit, which they intend to mine privately and which will have unlimited block size:
True. Guess I'm surprised Kraken et al haven't already announced that they'll support all chains, though? I guess they're all quietly prepping in case more than one chain is viable.
