You make no sense...

No one is going to agree to be a lemming and to walk over a cliff just because all the lemmings in front of them are going over the cliff, right?

If the agreement is not clear and does not provide a clear and unambiguous mechanism, then how the fuck they going to be on the same page regarding what it is that they are agreeing to do, exactly?

There's no code to follow or review, so there are way too many ambiguities in the supposed agreement.  And it is not even bad faith to have a different way of interpreting what it requires.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ohyyk/979_of_the_blocks_mined_today_supports_segwit2x/dki5f6m/

[–]JustSomeBadAdvice 3 points 7 hours ago

> Are you sure? All I see is voting for BIP91 and BIP91 doesn't say anything about a 2 MB HF.

BIP91 is segwit2x. Core is trying to pretend that they are different, but the email that proposed BIP91 puts a lie to that claim in the very first line of it. BIP91 was a compatibility kluge, nothing else.

The btc1 client forks to bigger blocks 3 months after segwit locks in, regardless of anything else. Meaning those who are running that software at that time will be forking. The fork can't be rolled back unless it is completely abandoned, as it requires a >1mb block at fork time.

Now that BIP91 has locked in, segwit signaling will be forced in the next few days and segwit will activate shortly after that. 3 months from that moment, BTC1 and the big blockers will fork; Core's only challenge is whether or not their legacy chain will be viable or completely stuck due to lack of miners.

We're free of core now.

> And why do we need to rush Segwit? If we have three months to wait for 2 MB we would have had three months to wait for Segwit. There is no sane reason to do Segwit before the hardfork.

Segwit would have timed out before the hardfork upgrade could be safely rolled out to the users that needed the upgrade. That was the reason. BIP148 added more urgency, but it wasn't necessary. If anything the speed at which segwit2x just activated, before the final release client had even dropped, should be an indication of how badly miners want Bitcoin to Actually Scale instead of be Bitcoin Jr.

> So, to summarize, the NYA did, what the "Dragon's den" wanted.

It did not. Read the emails, comments, posts, and github comments they've been posting nonstop trying to make the project look bad. The project's charter explicitly called out that signatories must be willing to provide resources including developer support and testing/logistics support. They knew full well that they were going to have to do this without any assistance from Core whatsoever.

We're free man.