BIP200 - Mandatory de-activation of forced segwit deployment

[juan.g71 at gmail.com (juan)]

	Do you mind elaborating on the factions at war here? I
	haven't fully figured them out I must admit.

	My take is that blockstream has some sort of vested
	interest...and so do the the "bitcoin unlimited" crowd.

	I'm not sure where the "user activated soft fork" thing fits. Is
	that what blockstream is backing? 



> Abstract
> This BIP supercedes BIP148 and outlines the methods and actions
> necessary to prevent unwanted network segmentation and forced
> isolation caused by non-consensual BIP148 and Segregated Witness
> deployment.
> 
> The Bitcoin protocol was initially designed as a decentralized
> standard. Unfortunately BIP148 establishes and assigns significant
> standards-implementation authority to large and more influential
> commercial organizations and away from independent parties. The
> author of this proposal fully rejects BIP148 as being contrary to the
> spirit of Bitcoin and rejects the premise that overall Bitcoin
> consensus can be gained through a simple voting mechanism.
> 
> BIP148 (UASF) additionally creates the scaffolding required for large
> influential groups to take ownership of the global Bitcoin protocol
> which is a significant departure from the original decentralized
> nature of Bitcoin. The presence of this scaffolding creates
> extraordinary risk of centralization within the Bitcoin community and
> must be resisted. This BIP takes a red-team-centric approach and
> proposes multiple legally acceptable covert and overt means to resist
> and eradicate BIP148 and SegWit from the global Bitcoin network in
> the event it is non-consensually activated.
> 
> More details:
> https://gist.github.com/joshuayabut/0b4f58bd31cb3becf4630002acac884d
> 
> Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based
> in Switzerland.