> 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.
I 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.
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.