yeah, that's why a lot of people are running bip-110. they don't even understand what uasf is. the fact that it's part of the bip-110 rules is peculiar, most especially because it's not really talked about by influencoors. the implication is uasf bad. there is bip-360 floating around, but they haven't declared flag day yet. it's a merkle tree based quantum resistant signature transaction. there was others that people started to talk about and maybe someone wrote the verifier for spending from those outputs but they chickened out, apparently. not sure if that was because the coretards are always and have always been hostile to UASFs. core opposed segwit, also. it happened anyway. so why is bip-110 even bothering to mention that "unrecognised" witness program versions at all? just why? it's a political statement not a protocol statement. "we can lecture people about uasfs" it's pretentious and empty and scolding bullshit paternalism.