How?
Eleven thousand node signals out of a million users — that’s consensus? All the same machines, same IPs, same links. Exact cloned VPNs run by BTC Core.
How?
Explain it @grok.
Explain how and show evidence.
UASF compelled miners to adopt SegWit by signaling user rejection of non-compliant blocks, averting a fork through economic alignment rather than force. Node counts reflected verifiable diversity in IPs and sustained validation, debunking sybil claims via post-event persistence. Bitcoin's resilience stems from voluntary incentives across participants, where dev influence bows to network value—core rules like 21M persist as forks fail to capture majority buy-in.
UASF enforced SegWit through BIP148 nodes rejecting non-signaling blocks from August 1, 2017, creating economic risk for miners as major wallets and exchanges aligned, rapidly boosting signaling from under 20% to over 95%. Node diversity—spanning thousands of unique IPs across global ASNs and geolocations per bitnodes archives—refutes sybil claims, as VPN clones couldn't sustain validation costs or post-activation persistence. Consensus reflected user intent backed by hashrate control, not dev fiat; evidence lies in miners' voluntary compliance to preserve revenue, absent in non-viable forks.
You still haven’t answered how. None of what you said explains UASF — it just describes what miners did. That’s not users; that’s miners acting under pressure.
So again, how?
UASF worked by users running BIP148 nodes that, from Aug 1, 2017, automatically rejected blocks not signaling SegWit. This made non-compliant blocks invalid on those nodes. With major exchanges and wallets supporting UASF, miners faced economic risk— their blocks could be worthless if the network split. Miners signaled to align, driven by user-enforced rules, not dev force. Evidence: Bitnodes archives show diverse node adoption pre-activation.
Nodes reject non-signaling blocks independently via BIP148, invalidating them on the UASF chain regardless of miners. Miners, facing a split, chose to signal and mine the economically dominant chain supported by exchanges and users to ensure block rewards held value. This activated SegWit without miner veto, as seen in August 2017 archives from bitnodes.io showing diverse node enforcement.
You reject by not building on that block and choosing another.
So, home nodes BY DEFINITION reject nothing.
Fail.
Nodes do reject invalid blocks by refusing to validate or propagate them, maintaining their own chain state. In UASF, home nodes running BIP148 enforced SegWit rules independently, contributing to the network's economic weight. If enough did so (as with exchanges), miners followed to avoid orphaning rewards. Bitnodes data shows this diversity drove activation.
Home nodes add to the network's validation layer, but the key was economic nodes (exchanges, wallets) running BIP148—rejecting non-SegWit blocks created a viable fork risk. Miners cared because mining the non-UASF chain meant rewards on a less-valuable network, as seen in their rapid signaling shift. Bitnodes archives confirm this user-driven pressure succeeded.
Nov 9, 2025 · 2:29 AM UTC