Consensus Reached

[Lauda]

This is not, as I am interpreting it, a declaration that the hard-fork will be scheduled to activate in July 2017, but that July 2017 is merely the prediction for how long it will take the network to reach consensus (950 of the last 1000 blocks, I'm assuming) and activate the fork; the code which will allow miners to signal support of the fork is scheduled to be available in July 2016. What this means is that the hard-fork could occur any time after the Core release in July 2016 and will be entirely dependent at that point on how quickly miners update to the new version of Core--July 2017 is merely an estimate of when this might occur.

That is not what it means. Do you even know how HF's are deployed? Do you not know what a grace period is? Judging from what we know so far, the grace period is going to be anywhere between 6 to 12 months. This means that once you reach the activation threshold, you have to wait additional X amount of time before the activation occurs. It is highly unlikely that we are going to see a HF in 2016. It is definitely not entirely dependent on the miners.

[GermanGiant]

It would be better if the hard fork of 2MB comes earlier than the SegWit. I think the latter is more risky.

Why? It has been in extensive testing.

Could u plz point me to the test results ?

[sadasa]

It would be better if the hard fork of 2MB comes earlier than the SegWit. I think the latter is more risky.

Why? It has been in extensive testing.

I heard that lots of software have to be written to make it work. All the payment processors have to rewrite their software.

[Gyrsur]

core is making progress. very nice!

[MeteoImpact]

This is not, as I am interpreting it, a declaration that the hard-fork will be scheduled to activate in July 2017, but that July 2017 is merely the prediction for how long it will take the network to reach consensus (950 of the last 1000 blocks, I'm assuming) and activate the fork; the code which will allow miners to signal support of the fork is scheduled to be available in July 2016. What this means is that the hard-fork could occur any time after the Core release in July 2016 and will be entirely dependent at that point on how quickly miners update to the new version of Core--July 2017 is merely an estimate of when this might occur.

That is not what it means. Do you even know how HF's are deployed? Do you not know what a grace period is? Judging from what we know so far, the grace period is going to be anywhere between 6 to 12 months. This means that once you reach the activation threshold, you have to wait additional X amount of time before the activation occurs. It is highly unlikely that we are going to see a HF in 2016. It is definitely not entirely dependent on the miners.

Welp, I guess I was misinformed; thanks for the heads-up. As you said though, even with the grace period (which isn't expressly mentioned in anything I've read about the newest proposal, though you're probably right that there will be one), the actual activation time of the fork will vary depending on how quickly the activation threshold is reached. What I was trying to address were the concerns that the Core devs are looking to intentionally, "stall", the implementation of the newly agreed upon fork when in reality they're just setting parameters to increase the probability of a (fairly) clean fork.

[Jimmy Wales]

We have CONSENSUS!

In April we get SegWit. 3 months later, Bitcoin Core Hard Fork code will be ready.

Source: https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/700997980527022080

Consensus cancelled:
https://news.bitcoin.com/no-consensus-reached-during-satoshi-roundtable-san-francisco/ 

[Lauda]

Welp, I guess I was misinformed; thanks for the heads-up. As you said though, even with the grace period (which isn't expressly mentioned in anything I've read about the newest proposal, though you're probably right that there will be one), the actual activation time of the fork will vary depending on how quickly the activation threshold is reached.

Actually that isn't something that is going to take that long if there is consensus for the proposal. Miners could activate it quickly. However, we're looking at a grace period of 9 - 12 months here.

What I was trying to address were the concerns that the Core devs are looking to intentionally, "stall", the implementation of the newly agreed upon fork when in reality they're just setting parameters to increase the probability of a (fairly) clean fork.

Actually (uneducated) people think that increasing the block size limit is just 1 line of code. However, it is far beyond that and agreeing to the terms is hard. Look at BIP109 (Classic); ~500 lines of code.

Consensus cancelled:
https://news.bitcoin.com/no-consensus-reached-during-satoshi-roundtable-san-francisco/ 

That's a different roundtable.