UASF node count continues to rise. Prepare for the upcoming Sybil attack against the HF.

BIP91 has now locked in, ensuring that the majority of the network needs to be enforcing SegWit.

With their goal achieved, why are the UASF nodes still operating, let alone increasing in number?

Blockstream will stop at nothing to ensure SegWit is enforced on the Main net, and they have the influence to fork away from any attempt to increase the block size. The fact that >80% of the network is operating Core software is a massive liability that is about to rear it's ugly head.

Bitcoin is guaranteed to fork at least once in the coming months. I say this because I, as a miner, am going to be supporting the UAHF 2MB fork at the earliest possibility. There will likely be a third fork as UASF/Core are basically guaranteed to reject the SegWit2X implementation because if nothing else, they are consistent in their desire to keep bitcoin from scaling at any cost.

What happens then? The >80% of miners who have signaled and locked in their intent to fork to 2MB+ will have three choices:

Keep mining SegWit2X, creating three forks of SegWit1MB, UAHF/BCC, and SegWit2X

Give up and mine SegWit1MB, leaving UAHF/BCC to compete

Abandon SegWit and mine the 2MB+ BCC fork.

Based solely on signalling and public intent, I am very confident the majority of miners will back the UAHF chain rather than compete with it, or give up the block size increase they have been demanding for over a year.

If this happens:

Expect a full Sybil attack from Core and UASF nodes. Economic actors and individuals who operate wallets on Core software could be completely separated from the majority of miners, leading to confusion and anger.

Expect full media blackout on the current state of the network, Blockstream has already shown their cards in being willing to change PoW if they are desperate enough in their attempt to control the narrative. They will stop at nothing to maintain control of the Bitcoin brand name to describe their kludged together mess of a cryptocurrency.

Expect full DoS/spam attacks on alternate implementations, this can be achieved with mass spamming of SegWit or other invalid transactions. Expect UASF nodes, if not all Core nodes, to begin denying connections to alternate implementations as they attempt to segregate the network and prevent legitimate transactions and non-SegWit blocks from propagating.

Go now and look up what has happened to BurstCoin in the last 24H. As I write this the network has fallen to pieces and may never recover, what happened?

Lack of alternate implementation allowed a serious overflow bug to be present in nearly every node operating on the network. A malicious individual has managed to spam the entire network with garbage data, causing the majority of nodes to crash leading to massive fragmentation of the network while users forced to use the poorly implemented wallets are stuck unable to access their funds. Even if they could send them there is upwards of 96 hours of backlog on the network ATM.

This is a glimpse into Bitcoin's future

We are far too reliant on a single implementation to provide connectivity to the network. Blockstream has their finger on a button that could cause huge disruptions to users through wallet providers, exchanges, and information providers.

Support real decentralization and operate alternate implementations of Bitcoin now!

Support real scaling and push your exchanges and wallet providers to ensure all forks of Bitcoin are allowed to compete openly

Coinbase has played their cards and announced they will not be support ANY forks of Bitcoin. This is a damning example of a company operating against the best interest of their users. They claim they are protecting their users but nothing could be further from the truth. What kind of exchange would ever tell people "If you want your coins from a possible fork, take your Bitcoin and get out!" How can anyone possibly justify this?

If I'm wrong and Core really isn't out to disrupt the network: I (and others) look a little silly and most likely BCC and SegWit2X will compete on the market.

However

If I (and others) are correct and Blockstream will stop at nothing to prevent a blocksize upgrade: We are about to enter into a dangerous and completely uncharted territory of nodes, miners, economic actors, and developers in direct opposition to one another; the potential outcome of which cannot possibly be known.

Could Core kill Bitcoin? No, but they could sure inflict some economic pain on it, potentially disrupting the public's view of "What is Bitcoin?".

Could Core win and end up with SegWit1MB as the only implementation? I highly doubt it. It only takes one miner to force them to compete and I know for a fact there are plenty of miners who are not thrall to Blockstream's ambitions.

If you find yourself saying "I trust these guys, they haven't led me astray before!" You have failed to understand Bitcoin's true power lies in decentralization, and >80% of the network operating on a single team's software is clearly mass-centralization of control.

Trust the highest difficulty Chain-of-Work, accept no substitutes!