Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 07, 2016, 05:19:19 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on June 07, 2016, 02:42:33 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 07, 2016, 02:32:56 AM

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

Nope , it binds the developers that signed to deliver a tested HF proposal to the miners by July, but makes no promises that it will be accepted by core, other developers, or the community.

Luke can literally change a few lines of code , hand that to them , and that would satisfy the deal.

Do I think this will happen? No. I believe that luke may be trying to include some HF wishlist items as well, and thus why he feels pressure, but who knows?

O.k. Thanks for that clarification, yet I stand by my overall assertion is that the HK agreement is a lot less specific and binding overall than what some of the XT/Classic aficionados tend to proclaim on an ongoing basis.

Sir, you cannot even spell mining pool. I don't think someone who controls 25% of the global Bitcoin hashrate cares about your assertions.

No official Core release with a HF for activation in mid 2017? No segwit.