Quote from: gmaxwell on May 27, 2016, 07:09:52 AM

Quote from: franky1 on May 27, 2016, 03:33:28 AM

Quote from: bitcoin_bagholder on May 27, 2016, 03:23:36 AM

The promise was made by a couple of devs at the conference. They weren't there with official Core decision making powers. Even if they do code the hard fork 2mb blocksize increase, there's no guarantee it will obtain "consensus" to be included in Core. Unlikely to reach consensus, making it a rather hollow promise.

luke JR did not sign the roundtable as Luke JR - 'eligius inventor and general programmer'.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
Matt Corallo did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
PEter Todd did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.

If they mislead anyone-- though they assure me they didn't-- that's on them, no one else-- doubly so because assurances were made to other contributors that no such thing would be done when concerns were raised in advance about the ethics of trying conspiring to set network rules in closed meetings. My prior exasperated comments were precisely because I think it's naive to think that whatever understanding there actually was at the time that it wouldn't be spun as something else-- exactly as you're doing.

As far as contributor it's true that they are-- but: Matt's last merged commit was December 13th (6 months ago), Peter Todd's last merged commit was Jan 31st (5 months ago), Luke's was Feb 27th (4 months ago). Valued though they are, these are not exactly the most active contributors (and to be complete, they do now all have recent pull requests open). Their signatures were accurate in any case-- anyone can be a contributor, it doesn't imply any particular authority... but nor did the subject of the agreement require any authority. Considering that the goalposts are shifting, -- now people suggesting that core has to accept whatever they propose (a promise they never could have made), or that this proposal has to come before SW... I don't know why they'd bother with it at all now. It seems clear to me that they're getting played.

....

You do understand how an agreement or a contract works, don't you?

Your buddies apparently signed on behalf of Core (it doesn't matter how you feel about it, they did) . The miners signed on behalf of their share of the mining industry.

This agreement has kept the overwhelming majority of hashing power on core and away from classic & co.

What you're suggesting is that the miners should expect nothing in return.

That's a fairly lopsided deal.

In cases of doubt it would be natural interpret it in a direction where this unbalance is evened out.

These people are not some noob programmers you can just smack down with some snarky comments.

If they see the deal broken by your party they will consider it void. Not only that, they will feel mislead and get quite cross about it.

You don't want that to happen. And, frankly, neither do I. And I'm a BIP101 fanboy!

It's a good deal. Try to work with it.