What does the UASF proposal entail?
The UASF proposal is an extension of BIP9 that allows soft-forks to specify a mandatory activation time. If miners have not started signaling support by this time, they must start to signal. Any blocks not signaling support for the soft-fork after this time are rejected.
BIP148 is an instance of the UASF proposal that ...
No. BIP 148 is a soft fork as the BIP 148 chain is valid to all non-BIP148 nodes and can wipe out the non-BIP 148 chain if it were to be longer than it. Because it is a soft fork, there cannot be any replay protection otherwise it would become a hard fork.
Nobody can determine the date for that event.
SegWit, like every soft fork, requires a majority of miners to enforce the new rules in addition to economically relevant nodes.
The initial BIP that proposes segWit, BIP 141, requires 95% of miners to signal they are ready for 2 weeks, before starting to enforce the new rules. This threshold is set so that at ...
BIP 149 is different in that it does not enforce orphaning of blocks that don't signal readiness for SegWit. Instead just the supporters enforce the rules on any blocks that contain SegWit data and allow regular blocks to be mixed into the chain. Thus, miners that don't change anything will build on the SegWit chain.
To split the network, miners would need ...
There are two ways to avoid transaction replay (besides something being built into the fork to begin with). You can taint your coins or double spend.
Tainting your coins requires you to get access to coins created after the fork on at least one of the chains. If you create a transaction which includes an input from a coinbase transaction created on the BIP ...
No measurement is going to give you the full picture due to sybil attacks, incomplete datasets, data source abstraction/summarization, etc.
However, there are resources out there that are trying to make it easier to see through the fog:
Blocks (miners): https://coin.dance/blocks
Poli (companies): https://coin.dance/poli
The total node count is not relevant. It's easy to spin up nodes, or even fake nodes that just report a certain user agent string. That doesn't mean that they care about the rules, plan to keep following them if the hashrate majority goes another way, whether they'd even notice if they're forked off, or even whether they actually implement the rules.
However, if a majority of miners agrees on the activation of soft forks, could they activate it? If so, does it mean that only 15 mining pools could control Bitcoin?
No. Soft forks requires full nodes and users to validate the new consensus rules. Miners can "force" soft forks, but that actually wouldn't do anything if no one uses or follows the soft fork ...
According to the timeline below, assume it has all the possible scenarios.
In either case Segwit2x/BIP148 or BIP148 soft-fork, Segwit lockin time on the mainchain is approximately around Aug 10 to Aug 14, and will activate around Aug 24 to Aug 28.
Graph is grabbed from Tone Vays recent eposide
Such a system could be easily gamed by people who simply spam the network with transactions and by miners who choose what transactions to include in their blocks. The penalty which they incur is still very small as compared to income of major economic players.
It does not take into account the amount of coins and also does not consider the vote of people ...
Case I: If the BIP-148 block chain is longer than the Legacy block chain?
(My understanding is, this won't even happen. Because if the BIP-148 network hash rate gets higher than that of the Legacy network, the Legacy block chain will always be "in sync" with the BIP-148 block chain, and the two block chains will be exactly the same. Am I correct?)
That is ...
If I just leave them as is, what happens?
Nothing, if a fork occurs, you get coins on the two sides of it.
If I switch my Trezor to UASF, what happens?
If you do not spend your coins after a fork happens, nothing happens. If you spend coins after the fork, you might expose yourself to replay attacks even though you are transacting on the UASF chain. ...
Once segwit shall be activated, does it mean that ASIC miners using ASICBoost miners won't be able to mine on that chain at all anymore?
No. Nothing about segwit prevents miners from mining non-segwit blocks using ASICBOOST. Mining segwit blocks will slow down (and likely prevent) covert ASICBOOST from working, but miners can still use it and also use overt ...
According to UASF Working Group
What do users need to do to enforce BIP148?
It is recommended that users do not update unless an economic majority commits to updating and users are aware of the risks and mitigations of a failed UASF deployment.
Users aware of the risks and who want to commit should use clients that enforce BIP148. Users that run full nodes ...
I would refine (in square brackets) StephenM's answer above as follows:
"For [UASF] upgraded nodes, the longer the stand-off continues, the more transactions build up in the backlog without miners mining them.
For miners, a chain-split means they are creating bitcoins that exchanges and users [ON THE UPGRADED NODES ONLY] will not accept as payment, which ...