Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!

[Kprawn]

They can make all the promises they want, but if it's not done in the correct manner, Bitcoin will suffer worst consequences than a few miners throwing a temper tantrum. Yes, the miners is one of the building

blocks of this experiment, but they are not the only partner in this. There are 1000's of people with millions of dollars invested in this too, and the Core developers have to protect their interest too. The main

goal will have to be to keep the network secure and stable.   ... If that is not done first, everyone will suffer losses.

[giggidy23]

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media:

Bitcoin Core & Miners Agree on Scaling Roadmap: Hard Fork Code Comes July 2016, Activation in 2017

Doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is the terms of the contract or agreement.
Almost 100% of the time the media gets the story/issues wrong. No one should base their knowledge
of issues from bitcoin media (especially when they are constantly wrong and half the time paid to shill altcoins).

You're telling me that the press and everyone on this forum misconstrued this?
https://s32.postimg.org/ye6owppk5/waifu.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/renjc4trp/bitches.jpg
And not a single core dev has seen it fit to correct such a grievous error?

But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.

Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.

I don't really understand the issue. If "Core" provides information on their site as to the roadmap or etc,
then "Core" takes an official stance and is attempting to comply/enforce/implement such a stance.
If a few Core contributors to the Bitcoin code make an agreement with anyone, even God himself,
descended from heaven, that does not bind the remaining Core Contributors (over 80 at least) to such
an agreement.

It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.

ELI5 what the core devs thought they were doing here, you keep artfully redacting shit:
https://s32.postimg.org/ye6owppk5/waifu.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/renjc4trp/bitches.jpg

What is the point of "reaching an agreement," issuing fancy press releases and posing for those nauseating pics when such agreements are fundamentally impossible in Bitcoin?

You know what promising something you can't deliver is called in the vernacular? It's called LYING LIKE A FUCKING RUG.

[Cuidler]

It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.

The appeal to Bitcoin Core authority is very dangerous for Bitcoin future in my opinion, few people with bitcoin github commit access have too much power given to them currently from miners obviously, and not just chinese miners.

To demonstrate Bitcoin open-source, more parties should come up with their repos with code improvements and modifications to Bitcoin protocol both soft and hard, competetion is much safer Bitcoin future, no risk of few key persons to define Bitcoin rules, thus only the hashrate which secure Bitcoin should have final word.

The HK agreement defining miners must run only Bitcoin Core is the worst that could happen, as monopoly is never best option. And I dont believe anyone who believes they deliver the best code and Bitcoin is open-source, availabe for anyone to modify and define Bitcoin would demand this - it seems the few key persons with bitcoin github commit access thinks only they have such privilege.

[AgentofCoin]

How could an invalid agreement ("Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.),") be made any more invalid?

It seems you are very confused. Did the bitcoin Devs that were present at that meeting,
sign the agreement as representatives of Bitcoin Core or as Lead Bitcoin Devs or as Bitcoin Maintainer or etc?
If they did not, and signed as individuals, then LukeJrs statement above is true, according to contract law.

Are you telling me that if you make an unauthorized agreement on my behalf (let's say forged my signature on a contract), that contract could be made less valid if I break some clause of this (illegal) document?

If I make an "unauthorized contract on your behalf", then the contract is automatically invalid,
since I did not have your approval to sign on your behalf. You can not make an invalid contract,
more invalid, only specific terms within such agreement can be individually invalidated due to
nonconformity of law.

Are you saying that LukeJr and others signed the agreement as Official Bitcoin Core Representatives?

This is how the whole thing was presented by Bitcoin media:

Bitcoin Core & Miners Agree on Scaling Roadmap: Hard Fork Code Comes July 2016, Activation in 2017

Doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is the terms of the contract or agreement.
Almost 100% of the time the media gets the story/issues wrong. No one should base their knowledge
of issues from bitcoin media (especially when they are constantly wrong and half the time paid to shill altcoins).

You're telling me that the press and everyone on this forum misconstrued this?


And not a single core dev has seen it fit to correct such a grievous error?

But, technically you're right. From now on, whenever I hear Core promise anything, I'll know that it's utter drek, because there's reallyy no such thing as the core team. The entity colloquially referred to as "Core" is amental construct, an ever-changing assemblage of sovereign persons, whose current electromagnetic state and molecular makeup is not identical to that of the signatories as at the moment of signing.
Thus making aforementioned virtual digital token, i.e. non-binding non-violent unenforceable non-contract null and void.

Takeaway: Legacy business (the sort where promises are actually kept and expectations met) is impossible with bitcoin.

I don't really understand the issue. If "Core" provides information on their site as to the roadmap or etc,
then "Core" takes an official stance and is attempting to comply/enforce/implement such a stance.
If a few Core contributors to the Bitcoin code make an agreement with anyone, even God himself,
descended from heaven, that does not bind the remaining Core Contributors (over 80 at least) to such
an agreement.

It seems to me the Chinese Miners have no idea Bitcoin is open-source and maintained/improved
by individual contributors working separately and together.

ELI5 what the core devs thought they were doing here, you keep artfully redacting shit:



What is the point of "reaching an agreement," issuing fancy press releases and posing for those nauseating pics when such agreements are fundamentally impossible in Bitcoin?

You know what promising something you can't deliver is called in the vernacular? It's called LYING LIKE A FUCKING RUG.

It's not artfully redacting anything. Those things are worthless to the actual issues at hand.
(Also, they take up a lot of space on this page, so a small posting turns into half a page.)

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

If you can't do that, which is simple, then you are putting forth an incorrect argument.
There is then no other action that may be taken other than going in circles.

You can not cite pictures and articles from bitcoin media as to what occurred.
Only the terms of the agreement is the guiding instrument.

I am arguing contract law and you are arguing pictures and media.

[giggidy23]

Do you feel that "Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team" is not, in substance, equivalent to "we didn't promise you dick"?

Not at all.

There is nothing equivalent about that at all.

If I promise to vote against BREXIT, and I promise to campaign against BREXIT, but I make it very clear to you that I do not get the final say all by myself, that my vote may be insufficient and that my campaigning may not sway enough people.

Had the core devs promised to campaign for the shit they promised to do, you'd have a decent point. They didn't. They promised to do it.
The difference may seem subtle, but it's there.

Is that equivalent to "I don't promise you dick"?

Perhaps you believe me to be influential enough that you value that promise from me.  As long as I fulfill my promise to the best of my ability, I've done my part. Even if BREXIT passes.

"I never promised to pay you back, I promised to try to pay you back. I didn't even promise to try very hard, lol, did I?"
Try pulling that IRL, Danny.

[Carlton Banks]

You know what promising something you can't deliver is called in the vernacular? It's called LYING LIKE A FUCKING RUG.

Do something. Oh no, that's right, you're doing it, lol. As you were, ladies and gentlemen.

[giggidy23]

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

P.S. You still haven't explained what you think is happening in those pics. plz do.

[AgentofCoin]

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?

The agreement is actually very simple.
The Core signers agreed to propose and lobby for a 2MB HF, three months after SegWit is officially released.

[Lauda]

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

This is obvious to pretty much any non-shill and reasonable member. Even after it was initially a bit confusing to some, the community tried to clarify wherever and whenever possible.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They don't have anything. This account was created for the sole purpose of attacking people. Do you really expect reasonable arguments from such?

[giggidy23]

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol.

@Lauda, your views about anything straying from the core party line are well known.
If you have nothing of substance to contribute, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post in this thread. thanks.

[AgentofCoin]

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol.

The agreement terms is the agreement. There is nothing more.
Seems the media mislead everyone, since they added and subtracted to the agreed terms within their articles.

If the miners were not happy with the terms at the time, they could have walked away and said, "no deal".
Instead, all signatories managed to agree to what they themselves could agree to.

Whether the agreement is a good one or not is not relevant.
The issue is whether people are breaching their agreed duties.
I believe (without full knowledge) that no breach could have occurred from the Core signatories since
the 2MB HF terms agreed to only activate when SegWit is released. Their part would begin now.

[giggidy23]

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol.

The agreement terms is the agreement. There is nothing more.
Seems the media mislead everyone, since they added and subtracted to the agreed terms within their articles.

If the miners were not happy with the terms at the time, they could have walked away and said, "no deal".
Instead, all signatories managed to agree to what they themselves could agree to.

Whether the agreement is a good one or not is not relevant.
The issue is whether people are breaching their agreed duties.
I believe (without full knowledge) that no breach could have occurred from the Core signatories since
the 2MB HF terms agreed to only activate when SegWit is released.

Again, I'm not discussing the terms of the agreement here, that's an entirely different can of worms.
You are claiming that the bitcoin press, r/bitcoin, this forum - in short, the entire bitcoin community - misinterpreted that agreement.
At the time, I pointed out that the agreement, just like all non-binding, no-violent and otherwise totally worthless & unenforceable agreements, is worthless.
Got laughed at. And I believe (not 100%% sure) Lauda added some grease to the fire with one of his de facto standards: "ignore him, he's just trying to stir up shit."

And not a single core developer bothered to correct that misunderstanding and right that grievous wrong. Not one of them chimed in with "Guys, he's totally right on the money, there's absolutely no substance here, just feelgood fluff to placate you bit-villagers.
He's totally right, and you're all wrong, lol."

[AgentofCoin]

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol.

The agreement terms is the agreement. There is nothing more.
Seems the media mislead everyone, since they added and subtracted to the agreed terms within their articles.

If the miners were not happy with the terms at the time, they could have walked away and said, "no deal".
Instead, all signatories managed to agree to what they themselves could agree to.

Whether the agreement is a good one or not is not relevant.
The issue is whether people are breaching their agreed duties.
I believe (without full knowledge) that no breach could have occurred from the Core signatories since
the 2MB HF terms agreed to only activate when SegWit is released.

Again, I'm not discussing the terms of the agreement here, that's an entirely different can of worms.
You are claiming that the bitcoin press, r/bitcoin, this forum - in short, the entire bitcoin community - misinterpreted that agreement.
At the time, I pointed out that the agreement, just like all non-binding, no-violent and otherwise totally worthless & unenforceable agreements, is worthless.
Got laughed at. And I believe (not 100%% sure) Lauda added some grease to the fire with one of his de facto standards: "ignore him, he's just trying to stir up shit."

And not a single core developer bothered to correct that misunderstanding and right that grievous wrong. Not one of them chimed in with "Guys, he's totally right on the money, there's absolutely no substance here, just feelgood fluff to placate you bit-villagers.
He's totally right, and you're all wrong, lol."

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Who should come forward and declare that the agreement, that individuals came to on their own accord,
is worthless and non-enforceable to those parties? If parties to the agreement do not uphold their part,
then their word and signature is garbage and should not be trusted in the future.

[giggidy23]

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
    -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
    -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

[pogress]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Who should come forward and declare that the agreement, that individuals came to on their own accord,
is worthless and non-enforceable to those parties? If parties to the agreement do not uphold their part,
then their word and signature is garbage and should not be trusted in the future.

I expected luke-jr and Blockstream members to lobby for the 2MB HF, thats what the HK agreement basically said - a compromise. But this did not happened - quite the opposite based on gmaxwell and luke-jr anti HF talk. What it means to me is luke-jr and Blockstream lost trust in my eyes and they damaged core reputation as well because they are part of core team. Im surprised miners still respect the agreement when Adam Back as CEO failed to deliver support from all Blockstream members, and luke-jr talk in these lines: "I will deliver some HF code, but its pointless". So Chinese F2pool, luke-jr and and Adam Back failed to deliver the promise and ruined their reputation with this - but time to move on and do not trust these three anymore.

[AgentofCoin]

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
    -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
    -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

All parties that signed the agreement are bound to the agreement terms.
I never said this document was a sound strong legal document, just that it is an agreement.
If you interpret such an agreement, you would use contract law, but for this to be enforced in
a court of law, it would be hard since this is a basic gentleman's agreement that if x happens
by estimated y, then I promise to do z.

There are many other terms and paragraphs missing from this document to be a sound legal contract.
For example, which jurisdiction's laws will be applied to this agreement? That is not defined.
What about disputes in termonology, is there a mechanism for arbitration? That is not defined.
What if SegWit is "late" by one or two months? Is that a violation? That is not defined.

Ultimately, it is not a great legal contract, but no one said that it was.
It is still binding and enforceable as to the signers and should be applied toward their character
as part of the Bitcoin community. That is all. All parties signed to the terms that exist.
If the terms are crap and full of crap, then no one should have signed the crap and everyone
should have walked away not reaching an agreement.

Edit: I would like to clarify, that when i speak of enforceability, I'm referring to the strict following
of the terms upon the individuals as agreed, and I am not referring to the legal enforceability of this
agreement/contract within a Court of Law. Enforceability within a Court of Law would be difficult for this matter
since the terms are very loose and non-committal. A Judge would most likely throw out such as case due to the
fact that no real damage or breach occurred and any alleged damage could not be quantified.

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Who should come forward and declare that the agreement, that individuals came to on their own accord,
is worthless and non-enforceable to those parties? If parties to the agreement do not uphold their part,
then their word and signature is garbage and should not be trusted in the future.

I expected luke-jr and Blockstream members to lobby for the 2MB HF, thats what the HK agreement basically said - a compromise. But this did not happened - quite the opposite based on gmaxwell and luke-jr anti HF talk. What it means to me is luke-jr and Blockstream lost trust in my eyes and they damaged core reputation as well because they are part of core team. Im surprised miners still respect the agreement when Adam Back as CEO failed to deliver support from all Blockstream members, and luke-jr talk in these lines: "I will deliver some HF code, but its pointless". So Chinese F2pool, luke-jr and and Adam Back failed to deliver the promise and ruined their reputation with this - but time to move on and do not trust these three anymore.

Your statement is all over the place.
1. Yes, it is a compromise.
2. No lobbing for 2mb HF should have already occurred. That starts now.
3. Gmaxwell is not party to this agreement/compromise.
4. Miners respect the agreement since nothing has occurred that contradicts the terms.
5. Lukejr can think the 2mb code is pointless, he didn't agree to a guaranteed adoption.
6. Lukejr and Adam Back agreement terms have not taken effect yet.

[giggidy23]

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
    -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
    -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

All parties that signed the agreement are bound to the agreement terms.
I never said this document was a sound strong legal document, just that it is an agreement.
If you interpret such an agreement, you would use contract law, but for this to be enforced in
a court of law, it would be hard since this is a basic gentleman's agreement that if x happens
by estimated y, then I promise to do z.

A gentleman's agreement is, by definition, unenforceable. Thus your attempt to "argu[e] contract law" is as appropriate here as applying tort law is to poetry, which is to say stop.

Gentlemen (here I'm trying for the most liberal, widest possible meaning of the word) negotiating a venture involving large sums of money (and by large, I mean humongous, ginormous sums - billions of nearly-anonymous borderless moneys that fit onto a usb stick) may forgo entering into an IRL, enforceable and legally-binding agreements for a whole mess'o reasons, but barring nefarious intent and deceit, we're left with only two: Insanity and Stupidity.
Core devs aren't stupid, most of them are reasonably sane.

Ultimately, it is not a great legal contract.

Depends on what you meant it to do.
And to whom.

[AgentofCoin]

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
    -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
    -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

All parties that signed the agreement are bound to the agreement terms.
I never said this document was a sound strong legal document, just that it is an agreement.
If you interpret such an agreement, you would use contract law, but for this to be enforced in
a court of law, it would be hard since this is a basic gentleman's agreement that if x happens
by estimated y, then I promise to do z.

A gentleman's agreement is, by definition, unenforceable. Thus your attempt to "argu[e] contract law" is as appropriate here as applying tort law is to poetry, which is to say stop.

Gentlemen (here I'm trying for the most liberal, widest possible meaning of the word) enter into ventures involving large sums of money (and by large, I mean humongous, ginormous suns - billions of nearly-anonymous borderless moneys that fit on a usb stick), the interested parties may forgo entering into an IRL, enforceable and legally-binding agreements for a multitude of reasons, but barring nefarious intent and deceit, we're left with only two: Insanity and Stupidity.
Core devs aren't stupid, most of them are reasonably sane.

Ultimately, it is not a great legal contract.

Depends on what you meant it to do.
And to whom.

A gentleman's agreement is enforceable by character and credibility.

If you are saying that the document signed is not an enforceable legal document, I agree mostly.
But I will still apply contract terminology and meaning behind the terms and phrases used.
Because an agreement may not be legally enforceable does not mean it can not be read as such.

Sometimes, Courts will remove sections of contracts that are unenforceable, but leave the rest intact
to make the remaining enforceable. So your example is not correct as agreements should not be
read a children's fairtales, but with contracting termonolgy. The question here is whether the document
was intended to be legally binding. I wasn't there, I don't know. The way that it is written is a promise to perform.

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

[giggidy23]

[]
A gentleman's agreement is enforceable by character and credibility.

What does that mean? Explain the mechanics of this "enforcement."
Wikip has this to say about gentleman's agreements:
"A gentlemen's agreement or gentleman's agreement is an informal and legally non-binding agreement between two or more parties. [...] It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary."

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

Not at all. I was not party to the negotiations, and can only guess re. the motivation and intent of the resultant "agreement." Placating you bit-villagers was suggested. You had pitchforks & the moat's been run dry, so sounds perfectly reasonable

[AgentofCoin]

[]
A gentleman's agreement is enforceable by character and credibility.

What does that mean? Explain the mechanics of this "enforcement."
Wikip has this to say about gentleman's agreements:
"A gentlemen's agreement or gentleman's agreement is an informal and legally non-binding agreement between two or more parties. [...] It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary."

When an individual signs a document with another individual(s),
that lays out terms and expectations as to how things will proceed,
but are not specific or defined enough so as to be a strict legally contract
within a specific jurisdiction and with no guarantee made as to final outcome,
that simple document is comparable to a handshake with a promise to perform.

That document is not based on legal remedy, but on whether someone's character
or credibility is worthy of entering into. Do you trust them to hold their word?
Then it is like a Gentleman's Agreement.

The enforcement mechanism of this type of agreement is that if one of the parties does
not follow up on what they have signed off on, then that person has lost credibility within
the community and anything they say should be taken as garbage. Also, they should not
be trusted with any other future agreements or such. The only remedy to this type of
agreement is a social one, and not legal.

A true gentleman will always keep his word, otherwise he is worth nothing.

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

Not at all. I was not party to the negotiations, and can only guess re. the motivation and intent of the resultant "agreement." Placating you bit-villagers was suggested. You had pitchforks & the moat's been run dry, so sounds perfectly reasonable

I don't know what that even means.
The miners asked for a meeting and forced that agreement. That was my understanding.