I fail to see how any non-mining user can attack a miner. The worst they can do is refuse to buy their coinbase transaction. Do you believe that users are obligated to buy coins from miners? If not, then all miners are voluntarily choosing a set of rules to enforce and a set of policy to mine.
>Don’t be mistaken; a hash-minority attacking the hash-majority is in actual
fact an attack upon Bitcoin as a whole.
Can you outline how a minority of hash rate can attack a majority? Users are free to follow tighter rules than before, or they may reject it. The majority of hash rate can continue the old rules or not. Where is the attack? I see a disagreement being resolved peacefully through unilateral separation.
>If this were possible then next year we’d see governments try to push
through changes in the same UASF way. I’m very happy that UASFs can’t workbecause that would be the end of Bitcoin's freedom and decentralized nature.
Governments would be much more equipped to simply go directly to the miners to enforce this for them - why even bother with millions of distributed miners when you can knock on a few doors and get your policy?
>If the majority of the users are hostile and reject blocks that the miners
create, or change the POW, then what the miners bring to the table is alsoremoved.
I don't understand how users can be hostile to Bitcoin. Users are Bitcoin. Everyone else serves the users. All participants are voluntary and can choose to participate or not. Where is the attack or hostility?
-Alphonse