rich1.0Cykros (npub1lc…63apw)https://nostr.ae/npub1lcetwt8hcd9gagdytu4e35ufykxek0elfvx8q3spugmgj9x0ev0q363apwnjumphttps://nostr.aeObserving doesn't quite capture it I think, but running is also sort of vague as it requires actually looking at the procedures in the code to derive what it'll do. And advertising isn't really accurate as discussed. Honestly if it were just this case we're talking about, "threatening" might be the most accurate. And actually given that a UASF always works by some sort of threat it may actually not be the worst terminology -- 148 was still at the end of the day a BIP that worked by threatening to enforce its rules and cause a chainsplit if any blocks didn't comply. It was never enforced because the miners adopted BIP-91, whose enforcement caused BIP-148 not to have any candidate blocks to discard. Probably too much value judgements around the word threatening but it does seem like an accurate term -- not sure if any cases can be found when it wouldn't be.