If all node operators and users who want to see SegWit activated on Bitcoin supported the BIP148 UASF they would have SegWit on August 1st – and the Scaling benefits it offers.
Not in a year's time or even further out in to the future – but by August 1st this year.
EDIT 2: As u/-johoe pointed out and to clarify – On August 1st the BIP activates to reject blocks that do not signal SegWit in order to reach the activation goal of the original SegWit deployment. Removed reference to SegWit itself activating on August 1st to avoid confusion.
Why shouldn't a change such as SegWit – that is accepted by the majority of users within Bitcoin's Peer-to-Peer, distributed network – not be activated by the User Acceptance of those Peers when…
83% of nodes support SegWit.
87% of businesses support or are prepared for SegWit.
They could all have SegWit if they supported a UASF through BIP148 – Mandatory activation of SegWit deployment.
If you want SegWit to activate on Bitcoin please signal support for a UASF.
EDIT: There seems to be a lot of comments about the SegWit+2MB proposal that suddenly sprang up today in response to recent UASF posts this week. In relation to that proposal compared to a SegWit UASF on August 1st:
A UASF is a consensus driven approach to activating changes in Bitcoin.
What's wrong with letting SegWit double the block size first, observing how the network is affected and then deciding what to do at a later date – why agree to something now that might be completely unwarranted a year down the line?
12 months to develop, review and test the technical details of the SegWit+2MB's Hard Fork proposal and then deploy it is too short a timescale for it to be done safely.
Have people voicing support for the SegWit+2MB 'compromise' even seen the technical details of it? SegWit as it is now has been thoroughly reviewed, tested and is even live on some alt-coins. It is ready to go now and we could have it by a User Accepted Soft Fork.
Submitted May 18, 2017 at 08:40PM by wintercooled
via reddit http://bit.ly/2riYizk