I think this post really misses the importance of mining support for UASF/BIP148 to be practicable. It’s an extremely risky idea and the chance of it resulting in a permanent split of the chain are very high.
- If the hash rate on UASF chain is low (e.g. <20%), it will have so little capacity/slow blocks that the chain would likely fail. In that case, we may not end up with 2 Bitcoins, but UASF would fail.
- If the hash rate on the UASF chain is moderate (>20% & <50%), the UASF chain could potentially survive, but it wouldn’t be able to overtake the other chain. So we would end up with 2 Bitcoins. (And if it got to close to becoming the longest chain, the non-BIP-148 would likely UAHF to prevent a wipeout.)
- Only if the UASF chain had more than 50% of the mining support could SegWit be implemented safely without a (massive) risk of the network permanently splitting.
I find it inexplicable how people can be against a larger block size hard-fork, because it is ‘too risky’, but support UASF.