Yes, more chaos because it will force an unnecessary chain split.

That's interesting. So if BIP110 activates on August/September with less then 55% of miners, your URSF won't ? Or do you consider it will have to be the legacy chain ?

BTW, I can't stress enough the fact that doing a URSF here is highly irresponsible. Given your track record as a respectable developer, why not create another UASF that is less constraining than BIP110, maybe simply one that only reduces OP_RETURN ?

You do understand that Bitcoin is under an existential threat until AT LEAST OP_RETURN gets fixed ? And if no other options are proposed, BIP110 will fork off and become the legacy chain.

Could use the Parmanode style :

🙋

52