| submitted by /u/saulabrm
Paragraph 2 of the NYA scaling agreement reads:
We are also committed to the research and development of technical mechanisms to improve signaling(sic) in the bitcoin community, as well as to put in place communication tools, in order to more closely coordinate with ecosystem participants in the design, integration, and deployment of safe solutions that increase bitcoin capacity.
(I added the bold above)
In direct contradiction, however, BTC1 (the S2X codebase) intentionally has created and deployed code that creates a technical mechanism to cloak signalling.
Also in contradiction to the claim of "deployment of safe solutions" the refusal to implement safe two way replay protection, which is an easy thing to do, is actually intentional deployment of an unsafe solution.
Add to that today's news that Jeff Garzik has sought assistance in creating Sybil nodes deployable as docker containers for BTC1 which would send false signals about the quantity of support S2X has and we can see that NYA's second paragraph carries zero weight with its lead (and possibly only) developer.
Add to that the fact that all the miners mined on a separate hard fork of bitcoin that was created simultaneous to the SegWit activation clause, and that all the exchanges listed and traded that alt coin and you have the agreement's first paragraph breached by practically all participants already.
Those that tell you that you are breaking an agreement by not endorsing S2X are the worst kinds of liars. You never signed up to their agreement; and they are the ones breaking the agreement.
(https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77 for anyone interested in reviewing it.)