One way to do a URSF is to reject the block *after* BIP110's activation block unless it contains a tx that violates one of BIP110's restrictions. If enough people run it, miners have to choose: make the BIP110 people fork off or make the URSF people fork off. They can't keep both

I cannot WAIT to dump this retard fork for more BTC, and the miners will do the same

It seems to me that Coinbase alone could decide to make a URSF defacto "popular" whenever they wanted to - and the majoriry of miners would almost be certain to follow. It would be at that point that BIP110 users and miners - presumably still in the minority - would have to choose whether or not t...

By risking to lose 92%? Terrible risk reward on that trade.

Would you be running a URSF if it existed and why? Where do you stand on this stuff? From your comments right here, it seems like OPIF is the reason why you might be against it. What functionality makes OP_IF important to you if you are anti-BIP 110?

8% of their users? as in the fees they get? So this is almost an irrelevant fraction at current fee market. But we'd also have to ask what percentage of users will be lost in a BIP110 main chain scenario. No more jpegs and other spam, right?