BUIP067: New Members for Election #7

[solex]

BUIP067: New Members for Election #7

Submitted: 9 September 2017
Voting date: 18 September 2017

Summary

This BUIP lists the new membership applications for Bitcoin Unlimited which have been received since the previous membership BUIP voting day. New members are not able to vote on the current BUIPs, but will be able to in subsequent votes, provided that this BUIP is passed.

1. @Mike Aetherial
BTC public key: 1CpPeNE5ngQH64LqoCmKxf3LWymatT1HB6
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-11#post-41015

2. @Crypto indo
BTC public key: 14wzM1ZUrmSPS5y7eBGwJdcfvVuNPq83wm
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-11#post-41173

3. @shadders
BTC public key: 19PriqWCtGPweCTgrgAHsEd4xWkqHcxmnE
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-11#post-41352

4. @Otaci
BTC public key: 1HTrN2uSNyPnQM7jwMAaqjNHAs2SpVf3jZ
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-11#post-41661

5. @John Cunningham
Links: Facebook: bitcointalk: Reddit
BTC public key: 1HZHDQZt4Ue8C8pWP8xyoZP2SdQkqDUqvp
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-11#post-43046

6. @Daybod
BTC public key: 31rqF7pqAe8xCUumMEYsB8vyRwYYpqUFrY
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-11#post-43270

7. @KevUnltd
Links: Twitter
BTC public key: 1Fd1Yby4CxooPiyQ9WFAsP8uE7cPaYv44H
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-10#post-39271

8. @Nic
Links: TFOB presentation
"Bitcoin Mining as a Contest" peer-reviewed Ledger paper
CoinDesk article
BTC public key: 1N9ukmAq6EhhVigrAHiMMzSHdEwDAcLskP
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-11#post-42540

9. @Erik Beijnoff
Links: Medium
BTC public key: 1Nm9MEPAi5qLA9MFULNQAs432fNLrQdpGr
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-10#post-39580

edit: 17/9/2017 final list
edit 18/9/2017 voting date

Prospective members are asked to provide a public key which they will use for voting. Bitcoin Unlimited is a participatory organization where we do ask that people devote a small amount of time, every couple of months to guide the direction of the software and org itself.

More links to external posting history (e.g. Twitter, Medium, Facebook, Reddit) are welcome, and I'll add them here. In the current adversarial climate the links prove helpful to existing members to make their evaluation.

------BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP067 MikeAetherial Cryptoindo shadders Otaci JohnCunningham Daybod, et.al.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
15TiujYmnHa33fjEnasBBm1eWcGx9YEXPL
ID4vKopmmQKpRqtkLK3Cjmvm3S1ZJafEFEQRniXVaFY9VUYHvUmO3P09mPTksk1k3f4CMUaRv+Iy3VAy3pO/oBY=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 

[Nic]

For Solex

thanks for kind message on my BU application to memebership
This is my BTC address
1N9ukmAq6EhhVigrAHiMMzSHdEwDAcLskP

 

[solex]

Hi @Nic,
Thanks very much for this! You are on the list now.

 

[Peter R]

@solex: for Nicola Dimitri you could also add these links:

- "Bitcoin Mining as a Contest" peer-reviewed Ledger paper
- CoinDesk article

 

[solex]

Voting is open for five days.
Existing BU members are invited to cast their votes via the BU website or by replying in the voting thread.
Participation in this process is welcomed and appreciated.

 

[AdrianX]

I'm cross posting this request here as I would much appreciate the new applicants additional input before I cast my vote @ 5:00pm PST on the 22nd.
___

I'd like to reiterate that BU is just one of may bitcoin implementations and membership vote is how we govern changes in this implementation. Members contribute on a voluntary basis and membership requires active participation to direct this project. (non members can participate in voting issues, I would encourage it as it builds rapport with voting members)

BU is differentiated from other bitcoin implementations by this governed method giving an opportunity to all professions and economic classes to participate in the development process of bitcoin, and as such active participation and diversity is sort-after.

The adoption of BU within the bitcoin network is voluntary and as such members only indirectly impact the direction of the bitcoin protocol leaving the network participants free to chose the software that runs the Bitcoin protocol.

It is a priority for me to grow an active and diverse membership that is robust enough to prevent the type of governing issues we've seen with the past specifically the concept of a single reference client run by a hegemony of encumber developers.

I don't have any good formula for improving the screening process for new members, and I'd hate to see membership deteriorate. I'd like BU governance to evolve into the best form of governance there is, so we are going to need a competent and membership capable of critical thinking.

Before I cast a vote for new members please meet me half way and help me understand who you are by confirming the flowing:

1. An online identity that can be validated that represents your participation in the cryptocurrencyspace space (if you haven't already done so.)
2. You've read and comprehend the Bitcoin Unlimited: Articles of Federation?
3. Can give some critical feedback on:
   a. one principal in the Articles you mostly agree with and why?
   b. one principal you think can be improved in the Articles and why?
4. An appropriate screening question to ask new applicants to prevent introducing bad apples to the membership?
5. The date you first started participating in some aspect of cryptocurrency discussion.

I think other members would also be interested in your responses.

P.s. You don't need to be a member to participate in development, everyone is welcome in the process. I'd encourage you all to ask questions, comment, discuss address advantages or disadvantages in the current BUIP's. Your participation and ideas are welcome:

Thanks in advance.

Adrian.

 

[torusJKL]

@John Cunningham can you add a reference to your reddit, facebook, bitcointalk, linkedin accounts to show that you control those?
[doublepost=1505790678,1505790011][/doublepost]@Erik Beijnoff can you prove that the you control the above linked medium account?

 

[Erik Beijnoff]

@torusJKL Sure, no problem. Mike Hearns article linked below currently has 80 claps done for it. None from the medium account. I'll add a clap a bit later today, making the total count 81.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7

 

[sickpig]

+1000 to what @AdrianX said.

A part from @Nic (who provided a lot of info) and @Erik Beijnoff that I have the pleasure to met at the Future of Bitcoin a basically dunno anything about all the others candidates.

Please help us to get you involved.

Edit: I see that @John Cunningham already provided facebook btctalk and reddit info. reading now.

 

[Erik Beijnoff]

In response to your request @AdrianX - I'm currently at an offsite with very limited access to internet. I'll try to give a proper response within a day, once I'm back in the civilisation once again.

 

[AdrianX]

Thanks @Erik Beijnoff.

 

[torusJKL]

@torusJKL [...] I'll add a clap a bit later today, making the total count 81.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7

Thanks, I see your clap.

 

[todu]

> Thanks, I see your clap.

@torusJKL How is that a proof that @Erik Beijnoff controls the https://medium.com/@john.s.millibit account? Aren't Medium "claps" anonymous?
[doublepost=1505953300][/doublepost]@Erik Beijnoff Do you have a Reddit and / or Twitter account that you can share that has a lot of comment history showing that you share the values of a big blocker?

 

[Erik Beijnoff]

No, claps are not anonymous. You can see that there's a clap from the account on the Hearn article.

I don't use Reddit other than for reading, nor do I use Twitter. If you look through the articles from the https://medium.com/@john.s.millibit account I think it's fairly evident that I'm a supporter of unbounded block sizes. Apart from this I have a history in several different Slacks related to the blocksize debate and I believe that several of the members in this forum knows my stance pretty well, some to mention could be @sickpig and @Peter R. There are others in here as well if needed.

 

[Erik Beijnoff]

@AdrianX - some answers to your questions below:

1. An online identity that can be validated that represents your participation in the cryptocurrencyspace space (if you haven't already done so.)
Done - this is my real name

2. You've read and comprehend the Bitcoin Unlimited: Articles of Federation?
Done

3. Can give some critical feedback on:
a. one principal in the Articles you mostly agree with and why?
I'm going to list two because I think they are equally important. The first one is that the evolution of the network is decided by the code people freely choose to run. The other one is that the software should not be controlled by any single governing entity. These two properties works in unison with each other. To be able to have a free choice, there must be options to choose from. And the options arise if there is an environment that allows implementors to compete for the favour of the network participants.

b. one principal you think can be improved in the Articles and why?
I think there is too much focus on properties that seem to be considered "holy", for example the proof-of-work system, the coin emission limit and other properties that I see as suggestions from the white paper rather than fixed absolute properties. It's problematic to say that the network participants collectively decides the rules and at the same time set fixed boundaries that they cannot cross. This is not merely a hypothetical concern, allowing the network to change *any* rule is an important property of a truly resilient network. It is probably also the only way to realise the full potential of it.

4. An appropriate screening question to ask new applicants to prevent introducing bad apples to the membership?
I'd say letting them elaborate on free speech, censorship and how it relates to network health. Also letting them describe their view of the events in Bitcoin between 2013 and 2017, with special focus on their opinions on the role of Core in the ecosystem during that period. At least to the extent that they know anything about it.

5. The date you first started participating in some aspect of cryptocurrency discussion.
Been following Bitcoin since shortly after the first boom-bust cycle the summer of 2011. Got engaged for real somewhere in 2013 but have always kept a low profile. The Core hijacking of the network made me become more public somewhere about two years ago.

 

[torusJKL]

@todu when you click on the number next to the clap on the bottom of the page you can see who clapped.

In addition Erik has confirmed to me on his linked-in account that the Medium account is his.
I have met Erik at the future of Bitcoin conference in Arnheim and he made a good impression on me.

 

[bitsko]

best of luck to @Erik Beijnoff , @shadders , and @Otaci !

 

[AdrianX]

Voting done,

Thanks to the members for applying for membership. I would encourage you to make more of an effort to engage with Bitcoin and BU issues your input and opinions contribute to the discussion even if you don't have a vote.

Given my limited time and no notifiable outreach I've elected to abstained from abstaining unless otherwise noted on the voting page.

 

[torusJKL]

Welcome @Erik Beijnoff , @John Cunningham , @Nic as new members of BU!
I invite you to be active and participate in discussions and voting.

BU has a unique development model with the voting system. Please vote as often as possible.

 

[Bagatell]

I am disappointed we only have three new members. Ironically there were candidates that are active on Slack that were turned down by current members that are not active on Slack.
[doublepost=1506242814,1506241977][/doublepost]I suggest we move to a system where candidates are proposed and seconded by existing members before being voted on by the rest of our members.