The ambiguous usage of the word “User” seems to me a large part of the problem. The vast majority of bitcoin users don’t run a node and have no idea that any of this is going on. I think a cleaner distinction is four groups:

1 — pro-UASF (in deeds, not in rhetoric)
2 — anti-UASF (in deeds, not in rhetoric)
3 — neutral 
4 — unaware / underestimating risks / just words (this includes many people wearing hats)

I read this article assuming you mean (1) by “Users” and that most miners fall into (2). Exchanges would probably be “neutral” (3) in the sense that they’ll want to protect themselves and their users — mostly (4) — against replay attacks and such.

In order to be (1) requires skin in the game as you pointed out in an earlier post. It could mean selling non-UASF coins to impact the price (however impractical), or if you run a custodial wallet refusing to honor that chain, or if you’re an OTC trader refusing to buy coins from miners. Despite a long list of people and companies that “Prefer” BIP 148, I have not seen many go this far and I did ask a few.

Most miners are part of (2) as you pointed out, but so is any merchant or e.g. localbitcoins trader who accepts bitcoin on the non-UASF chain, since they’re accepting wipe-out risk, no matter how small. Unforuntately most actual bitcoin Users are completely oblivious to this risk, and so they fall under (4). Which is why I think the U in UASF is highly misleading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *