Explain that BIP148 may not lead to the activation of SegWit.

[da2ce7]

I found this quite non obvious; so I have made a pull request to fix the wording.

Yes, my last pull request was ill-conceived, thank-you as-always for the review.

[luke-jr]

@shaolinfry

Suggest moving this outside Specification, and explaining that segwit can be re-proposed as a normal UASF in this circumstances.

[da2ce7]

@jonathancross, thank-you for your wording suggestions, I have adopted them in this pull request.

[murchandamus]

While the changes seem reasonable to me, it looks like the author has not shown interest in almost 7 years to add this amendment to their BIP. As such, I’m closing this PR now, but please feel free to ask to reopen it, if you would like to continue pursuing a merge.