It’s rather uncalled for for you to bemoan the “propaganda” targeting BitMain and then spin your own unfounded narrative about Blockstream’s involvement in the development of UASF. Propping up the Blockstream conspiracy only makes you come across as horribly dishonest and undermines the entire credibility of your post.
Blockstream had nothing to do with the creation of UASF and ShaolinFry’s initial proposal was even heavily criticized by our CTO Greg Maxwell, as I am sure you are aware.
With regards to the proposal, I find UASF anything but reckless. With proper deployment it is the only compromise possible and is supported by the game-theory behind Bitcoin.
I condemn your fear-mongering that someone will attack the chain or intentionally fork away and support its own via only hashing power. If BitMain wishes to preserve their industry position they will have no choice but to get behind the users’ wish and continue mining the chain that is supported by the economic majority.
I would hope that they reconsider their position and activate via BIP9 but they have shown little respect for the development process and are at the moment too busy fighting Core via proxy development team and other dubious & dangerous projects like BU.
Neither Core nor BitMain will decide what chain is to be called Bitcoin. Neither will they dictate the outcome of this stalemate.
The ball is now in the hands of users.