4 ms·
It's an embarrassment for the industry as a whole. The "New York Agreement" was a blog post, it was never a legally binding and enforceable contract. There's
by mbgaxyz 9y ago
It's an embarrassment for the industry as a whole.
The "New York Agreement" was a blog post, it was never a legally binding and enforceable contract.
There's a strong argument that the "agreement" was designed to fail, as it's hardly a compromise when party A gets what they want immediately, but party B has to wait.
In future, all "agreements" should be ignored.
- stepik777 9y ago> The "New York Agreement" was a blog post, it was never a legally binding and enforceable contract. More important is that those who signed simply have no power to change Bitcoin. > There's a strong argument that the "agreement" was designed to fail, as it's hardly a compromise when party A gets what they want immediately, but party B has to wait. Yeah, especially when party A doesn't even sign any agreement.
- wmf 9y agoI think if all the NYA signatories had gone all-in on 2x they could have killed the 1x chain. Between the majority of miners and a bunch of exchanges and payment processors, they probably do have the power. But the backlash and financial losses would have been significant.