I got repeated requests that Bitsquare should support UASF and I think it is time to make a public statement.
I basically support the idea that users have more influence about the protocol development but I think BIP148 is not the best strategy to achieve that and carry considerable risks.
But beside that Bitsquare could not do much anyway as we use BitcoinJ and not a full Bitcoin Core node. If a user is running a local Bitcoin Core node he can signal whatever he likes but it might lead to disruption of trades if one trader uses a transaction only valid on one side of the chain and use that as input in the deposit transaction. That might even lead to failed trades in the best case and double spends in the worst case.
As BitcoinJ follows the longest PoW chain we have no option to force the whole Bitsquare userbase to a BIP148 chain (beside the technical inability it would be problematic as well - so a clean solution would be a split of the Bitsquare network for both chains - causing even more damage).
Beside that I really think it is a highly risky strategy which might easily fail and create more damage as it tries to solve. I basically agree to what Greg Maxwell posted on the mailinglist.
Good intentions are not always a guarantee for good results. We need to deal with the fact the changes to Bitcoin are slow and need a lot of care and caution.
We have a lot of Altcoins which can be used for experiments and can act more flexible.
A network of currencies is anyway better than a single monolithic currency which should rule all.
Certain properties are contradictory (like stability and flexibility) and are hard to get in one coin.
So it is better to prepare to other solutions and see Bitcoin as the solid but slow moving rock.
Bitsquare will soon make some exciting announcements to reflect that. Stay tuned.