After reading a bit more I think this BIP148 is unlikely to happen.
It seems to me an effort by the ‘users’ to force the miners into action, that is to make Bitcoin transactions (temporarily) quicker by e.g. activating SegWit and/or bigger block size.
Miners, with a certain Jihan Wu as main culprit, who maybe don’t mind the current slow transactions/backlog, because the consequential high transaction fees they earn.
But according to the following article the success of BIP148 depends in the first place of how many miners (=hashpower) will support BIP148…: https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-uasf-and-skin-in-the-game-7695031c5689
currently there is no Omni Core version that enforces BIP148. However, if SegWit activates via BIP148, and the SegWit chain becomes the dominant chain, SegWit also activates for Omni Core.
That being said, we may publish a version enforcing BIP148 until August 1st, but this hasn’t been set in stone,
So if there is still no clarity a couple of days before august it is even more a good idea to have all you MaidSafeCoins (and BitCoins) on a Bitcoin address where you got the private key from. And don’t do any transactions until the situation becomes clear.
Slightly off topic, but Jihan Wu has been one of the most prominent advocates of removing the artificial blocksize limitation currently holding Bitcoin back. Unfortunately Core developers wouldn’t agree to the simple measure of raising the block size limit before capacity was reached (and way before seg wit was coded).
It’s crazy how the censorship in r/bitcoin & bitcointalk has led to so many believing capping Bitcoin’s transaction limit was a great idea / impossible to safely avoid.
Anyway, I hope Omni will figure out a way to navigate the situation if UASF happens.
Maybe better to formulate it as ‘Jihan Wu is seen as main culprit by some’.
You are referring to his support for ‘Bitcoin Unlimited’?
I’ve read that maybe not the fees, but asicboost is the reason SegWit is blocked.
I’m sure Yihan has his reasons for not supporting SegWit, but it has only been ‘blocked’ because the majority of miners don’t support it, and that’s how bitcoin works. Only 33% currently indicate support for SegWit, with 42% support for Emergent Consensus, so neither has enough to enact their plans yet (see coin.dance or nodecounter.com for up to date figures)
If you have the private key of your Bitcoin/MaidSafe address you can switch to another Wallet at any time you wish.
However, before doing a transaction when BIP148 is active, you should inform yourself with the situation then. E.g. the miners could also start a hard fork to counteract the BIP148, I’ve read somewhere.
You should probably also take into account transaction delay e.g. when sending some MaidSafe on the 31th of july from Poloniex to your Omni address, it could be that it is executed after the the deadline (Tuesday 1 aug 0h UTC).
Of course a chain split could have a (temporarily) effect on the value of Bitcoin/Maidsafe and the transaction speed.
That’s seems like an argument for why increasing the blocksize to 2mb is not a sufficient solution for even the fairly short term.
An emergent consensus based variable blocksize limit however, would increase transaction capacity in the short term, and give plenty of time for second layer solutions to be developed for when that is necessary or beneficial.
A brilliant scaling solution for Bitcoin and other crypto currencies would be if they could be ‘parked’ on the Safe network in exchange for Safe based tokens that have very low fees, fast transaction times, and the ability to be used in smart contracts etc, then removed to the blockchain when required.